senate - parliament of australia/media/committees/eet_ctte/...mrs marguerite de sosua, acting branch...

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

Proof Committee Hansard

SENATE

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT LEGISLATION COMMITTEE

Estimates

(Public)

WEDNESDAY, 25 FEBRUARY 2015

CANBERRA

BY AUTHORITY OF THE SENATE

[PROOF COPY]

CONDITIONS OF DISTRIBUTION This is an uncorrected proof of evidence taken before the committee. It is made available under the condition that it is recognised as such.

INTERNET

Hansard transcripts of public hearings are made available on the internet when authorised by the committee.

To search the parliamentary database, go to:

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au

SENATE


Wednesday, 25 February 2015

Members in attendance: Senators Birmingham, Kim Carr, Leyonhjelm, Lines, Marshall, Mason, McKenzie, O'Neill, O'Sullivan, Rhiannon, Ruston, Ryan, Wright.

Wednesday, 25 February 2015 Senate Page 1

EDUCATION AND TRAINING PORTFOLIO In Attendance

Senator Birmingham, Assistant Minister for Education and Training Senator Ryan, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education and Training Department of Education Executive

Ms Lisa Paul AO PSM, Secretary, Mr Robert Griew Associate Secretary, Higher Education, Research and International Mr Tony Cook, Associate Secretary, Schools and Youth Dr Subho Banerjee, Deputy Secretary, Skills and Training Ms Jessie Borthwick, Acting Deputy Secretary, Higher Education, Reform and Support

Cross Portfolio Mr Simon Gotzinger, Chief lawyer, Corporate Ms Susan Monkley, Chief Financial Officer, Finance, Parliamentary and Assurance, Corporate Ms Michelle Cornish, Group Manager, People, Communication and Legal, Corporate Mr Alan Grinsell-Jones, Senior Executive Lawyer, Legal Group. Communication and Legal, Corporate Ms Jacqueline Gleeson, Acting Branch Manager, People, Communication and Legal, Corporate Ms Sheree Harrison, Branch Manager, Finance, Parliamentary and Assurance, Corporate Mr Robert Latta, Branch Manager, Finance, Parliamentary and Assurance, Corporate

Schools and Youth Ms Deb Efthymiades, Group Manager, Schooling Ms Alex Gordon, Group Manager, Evidence and Assessment Ms Rhyan Bloor, Branch Manager, Evidence and Assessment Dr Gabrielle Phillips, Branch Manager, Evidence and Assessment Dr Yvonne Dunlop, Director, Evidence and Assessment Mr Tim Kane, Director, Evidence and Assessment Ms Louise Hanlon, Group Manager, Workforce and Youth Mr Patrick Burford, Branch Manager, Workforce and Youth Ms Jan Febey, Branch Manager, Workforce and Youth Ms Helen McLaren, Branch Manager, Workforce and Youth Ms Alison Sewell, Director, Early Childhood Education

Higher Education, Research and International Ms Anne Baly, Group Manager, International, Higher Education, Reform and Support Ms Susan Bennett, Branch Manager, International, Higher Education, Reform and Support Ms Julie Birmingham, Acting Branch Manager, Higher Education Reform Taskforce, Higher Education,

Reform and Support Mrs Marguerite de Sosua, Acting Branch Manager, Quality and Student Support, Higher Education, Reform

and Support Mr Dom English, Group Manager, Research and Strategy, Higher Education, Reform and Support Mr Robert Griew, Deputy Secretary, Corporate, Higher Education, Reform and Support Ms Lyndal Groom, Branch Manager, International, Higher Education, Reform and Support Ms Virginia Hart, Branch Manager, Research and Strategy, Higher Education, Reform and Support Mr James Hart, Acting Group Manager, Higher Education Reform Taskforce, Higher Education, Reform and

Support Ms Suzi Hewlett, Acting Group Manager, Higher Education Reform Taskforce, Higher Education, Reform and

Support


Senate Wednesday, 25 February 2015

Mr Ben Johnson, Branch Manager, Quality and Student Support, Higher Education, Reform and Support Mr Adam Luckhurst, Branch Manager, International, Higher Education, Reform and Support Ms Melissa Reardon, Acting Branch Manager, Higher Education Reform Taskforce, Higher Education,

Reform and Support Mr Craig Ritchie, Branch Manager, Higher Education Reform Taskforce, Higher Education, Reform and

Support Dr Andrew Taylor, Branch Manager, Higher Education Reform Taskforce, Higher Education, Reform and

Support Ms Di Weddell, Branch Manager, Other, Higher Education, Reform and Support Ms Ditta Zizi, Branch Manager, Research and Strategy, Higher Education, Reform and Support Ms Peta Furnell, General Manager, VET Reform, Skills and Training Ms Kathryn Shugg, Branch Manager, VET Reform, Skills and Training Mr David Turvey, Branch Manager, VET Reform, Skills and Training Mr Brendan Morling, Group Manager, Skills Programmes, Skills and Training Ms Linda White, Branch Manager, Skills Programmes, Skills and Training Ms Susan Devereux, Branch Manager, Skills Programmes, Skills and Training Mr Craig Robertson, Group Manager, Skills Policy, Skills and Training Mr Jason Coutts, Branch Manager, Skills Policy, Skills and Training Mr Grant Lovelock, Branch Manager, Skills Policy, Skills and Training Dr Melissa McEwen, Branch Manager, Skills Policy, Skills and Training Ms Anne Flynn, Acting Branch Manager, Skills Policy, Skills and Training

Portfolio Agencies Tertiary Education Quality Standards Agency

Prof Nicholas Saunders, Acting Chief Commissioner Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority

Dr Phil Lambert, General Manager Dr Stanley Rabinowitz, General Manager Mr Rob Randall, Chief Executive Officer

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership Ms Margery Evans, Chief Executive Officer Mr Edmund Misson, General Manager

Australian Research Council Prof Aidan Byrne, Chief Executive Officer Mrs Laura Dan, Chief Program Officer

Australian Skills and Quality Authority Mr Justin Napier, Branch Manager Mr Christopher Robinson, Chief Commissioner

Committee met at 09:01 CHAIR (Senator McKenzie): I declare open this meeting of the Senate Education and Employment

Legislation Committee on Wednesday, 25 February 2015. The Senate has referred to the committee the particulars of proposed expenditure for 2014-15 and related documents for the Education and Training portfolio. The committee may also examine the annual reports of departments and agencies appearing before it. The committee has fixed Friday 17 April, 2015 as the date for the return of answers to questions on notice. Senators are reminded that any written questions on notice should be provided the committee secretariat by close of business Friday 6 March. The committees proceedings today will begin with its examination of cross portfolio and then will follow the order as set out in the circulated program.

Under standing order 26 the committee must take all evidence in public session. This includes answers to questions on notice. I remind all witnesses that in giving evidence to the committee they are protected by



parliamentary privilege. It is unlawful for anyone to threaten or disadvantage a witness on account of evidence given to a committee and such action may be treated by the Senate as a contempt. It is also a contempt to give false or misleading evidence to the committee. The Senate by resolution in 1999 endorsed the following test of relevance of questions at estimates hearings: any questions going to the operations of financial positions of the departments and agencies which are seeking funds in the estimates are relevant questions for the purpose of estimates hearings. I remind officers that the Senate has resolved that there are no areas in connection with the expenditure of public funds where any person has a discretion to withhold details or explanations from the parliament or its committee unless the parliament has expressly provided otherwise. The Senate has also resolved that an officer of a department of the Commonwealth shall not be asked to give opinions on matters of policy and shall be given reasonable opportunity to refer questions asked of officers to superior officers or to a minister. This resolution prohibits only questions asking for opinions on matters of policy and does not preclude questions asking for explanations of policies or factual questions about when and how policies were adopted.

I particularly draw the attention of witnesses to an order of the Senate of 13 May, 2009 specifying the process by which a claim of public interest immunity should be raised. Witnesses are specifically reminded that stating that information or a document is confidential or consists of advice to government is not a statement that meets the requirements of the 2009 order. Instead, witnesses are required to provide some specific indication of the harm to the public interest that could result from the disclosure of information in the document.

The extract read as follows— Public interest immunity claims That the Senate—

(a) notes that ministers and officers have continued to refuse to provide information to Senate committees without properly raising claims of public interest immunity as required by past resolutions of the Senate; (b) reaffirms the principles of past resolutions of the Senate by this order, to provide ministers and officers with guidance as to the proper process for raising public interest immunity claims and to consolidate those past resolutions of the Senate; (c) orders that the following operate as an order of continuing effect:

(1) If: (a) a Senate committee, or a senator in the course of proceedings of a committee, requests information or a document

from a Commonwealth department or agency; and (b) an officer of the department or agency to whom the request is directed believes that it may not be in the public

interest to disclose the information or document to the committee, the officer shall state to the committee the ground on which the officer believes that it may not be in the public interest to disclose the information or document to the committee, and specify the harm to the public interest that could result from the disclosure of the information or document.

(2) If, after receiving the officer’s statement under paragraph (1), the committee or the senator requests the officer to refer the question of the disclosure of the information or document to a responsible minister, the officer shall refer that question to the minister.

(3) If a minister, on a reference by an officer under paragraph (2), concludes that it would not be in the public interest to disclose the information or document to the committee, the minister shall provide to the committee a statement of the ground for that conclusion, specifying the harm to the public interest that could result from the disclosure of the information or document.

(4) A minister, in a statement under paragraph (3), shall indicate whether the harm to the public interest that could result from the disclosure of the information or document to the committee could result only from the publication of the information or document by the committee, or could result, equally or in part, from the disclosure of the information or document to the committee as in camera evidence.

(5) If, after considering a statement by a minister provided under paragraph (3), the committee concludes that the statement does not sufficiently justify the withholding of the information or document from the committee, the committee shall report the matter to the Senate.

(6) A decision by a committee not to report a matter to the Senate under paragraph (5) does not prevent a senator from raising the matter in the Senate in accordance with other procedures of the Senate.

(7) A statement that information or a document is not published, or is confidential, or consists of advice to, or internal deliberations of, government, in the absence of specification of the harm to the public interest that could result from the disclosure of the information or document, is not a statement that meets the requirements of paragraph (1) or (4).

(8) If a minister concludes that a statement under paragraph (3) should more appropriately be made by the head of an agency, by reason of the independence of that agency from ministerial direction or control, the minister shall inform the committee of that conclusion and the reason for that conclusion, and shall refer the matter to the head of the agency, who shall then be required to provide a statement in accordance with paragraph (3).

(Extract, Senate Standing Orders, pp 124-125)



Department of Education and Training [09:04]

CHAIR: I welcome Senator the Hon. Simon Birmingham—great to have you hear, Minister—representing the Minister for Education and Training; the departmental secretary, Ms Lisa Paul; and officers of the Department of Education and Training. Senator Birmingham, do you wish to make an opening statement?

Senator Birmingham: Good morning. Very briefly. Of course, it is a delight to be back at education estimates, which I have not attended for some period of time. As senators would be aware, the changes to ministerial arrangements and some machinery of government changes have changed the nature of the department appearing today, as well as the ministerial representative arrangements. Of course, Minister Christopher Pyne continues as the Minister for Education and Training. The department has absorbed from the Department of Industry issues relating to vocational education and training and skills. I am pleased to have particular responsibility for those matters as the assistant minister, and Senator Scott Ryan continues as the parliamentary secretary with particular responsibilities around universal access, early learning, preschool, chaplaincy, youth, our internal deregulation agenda and infrastructure matters in the portfolio. Senator Ryan will be here at different junctures today to handle his matters of the portfolio and some of the school sections, whilst I will handle the general issues of higher education, which is of course my own portfolio responsibility.

CHAIR: Thank you, Minister. It is fabulous to have you here. Ms Paul, do you wish to make an opening statement?

Ms Paul: No, thank you. CHAIR: Senator Lines. Senator LINES: Thank you, Minister, for mentioning child care. Today we have outcome 1, program 1.1 and

program 1.4 in child care and I really want to understand from the department what is encompassed in program 1.1 and 1.4.

Ms Paul: Sure. All of the childcare responsibilities have gone to the Department of Social Services. So any questions on Productivity Commission inquiries et cetera will need to be directed to them. But their estimates come after this. So that is good. Support for the childcare system remains with us. We actually do not have too much remaining, but the very important responsibility for preschool. So we keep the responsibility for universal access and that national partnership. We keep responsibility for the early learning languages trial that is happening and which we have spoken about before. We keep the research and anything to do with age 4, basically—so the Australian early development centres, for example. I think that is under 1.1, which is why that is still there. Those are the main things that remain. The way that you could frame it is that anyone under four is with social services and preschool remains our responsibility, because early learning matches well with schooling and so on.

Senator LINES: Except if they are four year olds in the early childhood system? Ms Paul: Sure. That is the way it has occurred. Senator LINES: Just to make sure that I have understood, there is nothing at all in relation to early childhood

care? Ms Paul: That is right. Senator LINES: So out-of-school-hours care; everything now is in the other portfolio? Ms Paul: That is right. You will find that you will be talking to the same people. The deputy secretary is

Jackie Wilson. You know those people but they are now in the Department of Social Services. Senator LINES: That is very clear. Thank you very much. CHAIR: Senator Carr. Senator KIM CARR: I would like to turn to the letter that you sent to me, Ms Paul, on the question of the

government advertising campaign. Ms Paul: Sure. Senator KIM CARR: I understand that the secretary of the Department Finance forwarded on to you a letter I

sent to her dated 9 December. The letter concerned the advertising campaign. Can you confirm a few facts with me before we go to some other issues? Can you inform the committee on what date you received that letter?

Ms Paul: The letter referred from Ms Halton? Senator KIM CARR: Yes



Ms Paul: It would have been, I think, quite soon after you wrote to her. You wrote on 9 December. I do not have the date in front of me. But, honestly, it would have been a couple of days later or a day later or maybe even on the day. When I would have seen your letter, yes, it would have been in that timeframe.

Senator KIM CARR: What was the date in which you replied to my letter? Ms Paul: You only received that yesterday and I signed it the day before. I have apologised for that in the first

paragraph. Perhaps I can explain. I do apologise for that. There is summer leave et cetera, but there is never any good excuse for a late letter. What happened was that because you had not written to me, we thought that Ian McPhee's letter back to you kind of cover it. I will be absolutely honest with you Senator, because it is not often that you and I write to each other. You did not write to me, but anyway I do not take these things lightly. It was when I saw your media release saying that I hadn't responded I thought, 'Okay, so a response is obviously expected.' That is when we started to develop it. I cannot offer any comfort except for an apology and to say that I do note that most of this information was also reflected in Ian McPhee's letter. Nonetheless, there is no excuse for a late correspondence and I do apologise.

Senator KIM CARR: Can we deal then with the substance of the letter itself. Obviously I was surprised it did take so long.

Ms Paul: Absolutely right. I am sure that if it had been a slightly clearer trail by way of you writing to me directly—

Senator KIM CARR: Okay. That is— CHAIR: Sorry, Senator Carr. Senator Ruston? Senator RUSTON: Would it be possible for us all to have a copy of this letter? CHAIR: Are you asking for the letter to the table? Senator RUSTON: It is just that Senator Carr is questioning Ms Paul about a letter and I am afraid that I do

not know what it is. CHAIR: Senator Carr, I think those letters from you and Senator Xenophon were tabled in finance and public

admin yesterday, so they are public. Senator KIM CARR: I am not the slightest bit— CHAIR: Excuse me, Senator Carr, I am talking. Would it be possible for senators of this committee to

actually be able to refer to that correspondence that you are referring to? Senator KIM CARR: I do not mind in the slightest. If you have copies already tabled, why would I be

concerned? CHAIR: Thank you, so much. Senator Birmingham: Sorry, is Senator Carr going to table the letter? CHAIR: I took it to mean Senator Carr you would be able to. Senator KIM CARR: I thought you had said that they had already been tabled. CHAIR: In finance and public admin yesterday. Given the timing issues, it might be quicker if the secretariat

could just simply photocopy it. Senator KIM CARR: I require the letters, too, with my questions. They are already tabled— CHAIR: Senator Carr. Can you go to another area of questioning until the secretariat can get the letters? Senator KIM CARR: No, I want to pursue this area of questioning. CHAIR: I am happy for you to pursue this area, Senator Carr, but not until senators of this committee can

actually ascertain and have a look at the documentation to which you are referring. Now, you can table it or the secretariat can find that off of the finance and public admin website. So could you go to another line of questioning? We will absolutely come back to this questioning once that document has been tabled.

Ms Paul: Do you want me to have mine copied? CHAIR: Thank you so much. Ms Paul: Obviously if it is not in front of me, Senator, I might have to come back to it. Senator KIM CARR: What was the date when the department decided to commission market research on the

level of awareness and understanding of the higher education system? Ms Paul: I'll get our communications person for you.



Senator Birmingham: Chair, if I can just indicate that obviously Ms Paul is happy to deal with questions in relation to the letter and any of the factual matters, and so on, early on. But, depending on how far we go into this, this may become matters best explored in the higher education section.

Senator KIM CARR: They might be, Minister, but this is cross portfolio and I am asking questions here quite deliberately as cross portfolio questions. Thank you for your advice.

Senator Birmingham: Senator, you can ask the questions. It may be that I need to not take them on notice for a response later but take them on notice for a response when the appropriate officials from the higher education section are here.

Senator KIM CARR: These have always been cross portfolio issues. They are questions of contracts. Questions of government advertising are clearly cross portfolio.

Senator Birmingham: Senator Carr, it is only 9:14 am. Stay cool, please. Senator KIM CARR: And already you are trying to avoid answering questions. Senator Birmingham: All I was suggesting, Senator Carr, is that we will go as far as we can at this stage

depending on how far into some of the issues we will want— Senator KIM CARR: That is not what you are suggesting. CHAIR: Minister! Senator Carr! Senator Birmingham: Senator Carr, don't start verballing at this time of day, please. CHAIR: Minister! It is only quarter past nine. Maybe another coffee all around and a deep breath. The letters

are arriving. Let us proceed and I am sure that we will stick to cross portfolio matters. Thank you, Senator Carr. Senator KIM CARR: Can I ask the Secretary, what was the date in which the department decided to

commission the market research on the level of awareness and understanding of the higher education system? Ms Gleeson: The department issued a request for quotes for developmental research on 3 October, 2014. Senator KIM CARR: I take it a decision was taken to commission research prior to the request for tender

being issued. Ms Paul: Sure. You want the date of that internal decision. We may not have that. That would be an internal

decision. Senator KIM CARR: There will be a date in the department that the decision was taken to commission this

report. Ms Paul: Okay. We will take that on notice. Senator KIM CARR: Thank you. If we could have that later in the day, I would appreciate it. When was

ORIMA Research chosen to conduct this research? Ms Gleeson: In terms of the work order that the department signed with ORIMA Research, that was signed on

16 October 2014. Senator KIM CARR: What was the outcome of the research? Ms Paul: In terms of content? Senator KIM CARR: Yes. Ms Paul: This is now getting into the area where I actually think would be quite handy for the higher ed

people to be here. Senator KIM CARR: Can you provide me with a copy of the research report? Ms Paul: Sure, I will take that on notice. Senator KIM CARR: When did the department receive that report? Ms Paul: Sorry, we will have to take it on notice. CHAIR: After dinner tonight? Ms Paul: Yes. Senator KIM CARR: If we can have it before then, because these are questions that go to cross portfolio. I

am not particularly interested in getting them in the middle of the night. I would prefer to get them when we ask the questions, but if it cannot be done then as soon as practicable.

Ms Paul: We may be able to dig it up.



Senator KIM CARR: Why was the contract with ORIMA Research varied to pay them an additional $13,481?

Ms Gleeson: Is that the variation? Do you have the date that you are referring to there? Is that the tender date? Senator KIM CARR: I am working off the AusTender documents, yes. Ms Gleeson: Is that the 17 December variation? Senator KIM CARR: I believe that is the one. Ms Gleeson: The variation was due to the department commissioning additional focus groups. Senator KIM CARR: How many focus groups were involved? Ms Gleeson: I would have to take that on notice. Senator KIM CARR: And where were they conducted? Ms Gleeson: That part of the research was conducted nationally. Again, I would like to take that on notice. Senator KIM CARR: When did the department start working out the proposals for the advertising campaign

itself? Ms Paul: Do you mean the beginning of the creative work? Senator KIM CARR: Yes. Ms Gleeson: That would have occurred after we signed the contract with the successful tenderer for the

creative services provided for the campaign. Senator KIM CARR: Would you be able to give me a date to that, please? Ms Gleeson: We issued the RFQ for the campaign creative services on 28 October. Senator KIM CARR: So the creative work would have occurred just after that? Ms Gleeson: It started on 19 November when the contract was signed with the successful tenderer. Senator KIM CARR: What was involved in the creative work at that time on 19 November? Ms Paul: In what way? It would have worked off of the market research. Senator KIM CARR: So it just implemented the market research, is that what you are saying? Ms Paul: Yes, that is right. Senator KIM CARR: On what date did, Ms Paul, you certify the campaign complied with the short-term

interim guidelines on information and advertising campaigns? Ms Paul: That was 25 November. Senator KIM CARR: Was that the date that the secretary gave that certification to the minister? Ms Paul: Not necessarily. I think that was probably some days later. It looks like it would have been in a brief

and the date of transmission would have been 2 December, by the looks of it. Senator KIM CARR: Thank you. Are you able to tell me on what date and in what form the minister sought

endorsement from the Special Minister of State? Ms Paul: The date, yes. It looks like 2 December. Senator KIM CARR: And what was the form of the endorsement? Ms Paul: Do you mean transmittal or endorsement by the Special Minister of State? Senator KIM CARR: What was the form of it? Ms Paul: I do not know. We will take that on notice. Senator KIM CARR: I suspect that you will be able to give me a straightforward answer here. On what date

did the minister approve the advertising campaign? Ms Paul: It was 2 December. Senator KIM CARR: The same day? Ms Paul: Sorry, do you mean the Special Minister of State? Senator KIM CARR: Yes. Ms Paul: Sorry, wrong minister. That was 3 December. Senator KIM CARR: What is the cabinet decision or the policies of the programs to which the campaign

directly related?



Ms Paul: It was decisions taken in the budget. Senator KIM CARR: Are you able to tell me the date on which that decision was made in regard to the

higher education program? Ms Paul: In regard to — Senator KIM CARR: The date that the cabinet signed off on the higher education campaign? Ms Paul: The government decision on the campaign in whatever form was 28 October. Senator KIM CARR: On 3 December, the Minister for Education, Mr Pyne, made a statement to the effect

that Senator Madigan and other unnamed crossbenchers had asked for this information to be prepared. Is that correct?

Ms Paul: I am not familiar with that statement, sorry. Senator RHIANNON: The minister's comments were widely publicised at the time. Senator KIM CARR: Yes, they were. I have a Sydney Morning Herald article here dated 8 December. Senator Birmingham: Certainly there was growing concern in a range of corners, and I suspect from some of

the crossbenchers as well, about some of the misinformation and misunderstanding related to the government's proposed higher education reforms and the legislation that was before the Senate.

Ms Paul: Eight December makes sense, because the campaign launched on the seventh. Senator KIM CARR: The quote here is that Minister Pyne said that independent Senator John Madigan had

requested a government run education campaign. Ms Paul: I am not familiar with that. Senator KIM CARR: You are not familiar with that. Your media monitoring services didn't pick that up for

you? Ms Paul: I may have seen it at the time, but I would need to be refreshed now. Senator KIM CARR: Did Senator Madigan make that request? Ms Paul: I can't tell you. Indeed, it sounds like it was a request to the minister if it occurred. So I would need

to take that on notice. Senator KIM CARR: Minister, are you able to tell me whether Senator Madigan actually made that request? Senator Birmingham: Senator, I am not privy to the content of conversations between Minister Pyne and

crossbenchers. What I am well aware of is that there was growing concern within the government and the department, reflected by some of the research that the department had undertaken, and within parts of the university sector and potentially within some of the crossbenchers that the nature of the university reforms the government was undertaking were being misrepresented and that there was misunderstanding about the nature of those reforms. In particular, in relation to some of the concerns that were being expressed around the country about whether the reforms changed the income contingent repayment nature of higher education fee support. Ultimately, I think you and others have helped with that misrepresentation campaign in terms of feeding fears that there would become some upfront aspect to fees or costs that Australians may face when going to university. Of course, that is blatantly untrue and false when you look at the details of the reforms that the government presented to the parliament.

Senator KIM CARR: You have misquoted me at length. You have clearly misquoted Senator Madigan. Senator Birmingham: In which way did I misquote you, Senator Carr? Senator KIM CARR: Because at no point have I made the claims that you are asserting. Senator Birmingham: So, Senator Carr, on 29 October 2014 in your speech on the legislation, when you

talked about Australians facing the prospect of taking out a second mortgage to help pay the costs of their child's education, that was not somehow stoking fear that Australian parents may face an upfront cost?

Senator KIM CARR: That is a statement of fact. Senator Birmingham: No, it is not a statement of fact. There is absolutely no need for any Australian to take

out a first mortgage, a second mortgage or any other mortgage because those fees are able to be put on the HELP scheme and paid back on an income contingent basis.

Senator KIM CARR: It is a statement of fact. Senator Birmingham: It is not a statement of fact. It is a lie, Senator Carr. CHAIR: Thank you, Minister. Senator Carr.



Senator KIM CARR: Senator Madigan was accused of asking for this government's propaganda campaign. Senator O'SULLIVAN: Point of order, Chair. CHAIR: You can take a point of order. Senator O'SULLIVAN: This is a perennial question, but I am wondering whether Senator Carr would

distribute the article so that we can all read it, understand it and look at part of his presentation in the context of the article. Would he be willing to do that?

Senator KIM CARR: Look, you have a computer in front of you, surely. Look it up. CHAIR: Could you please give us the date so that the secretariat— Senator KIM CARR: It has already been done. It is 8 December from the Sydney Morning Herald. CHAIR: Thank you. Senator KIM CARR: On that date, Senator Madigan was accused of making this request. Senator Madigan

has denied making this request. Are you aware of that? Ms Paul: No, I am not. Senator KIM CARR: Minister, are you aware of that? Senator Birmingham: No, I do not recall that. Senator KIM CARR: Has the minister apologised to Senator Madigan? Senator Birmingham: As I said before, I am not aware of the content of private conversations between

Minister Pyne and Senator Madigan. And, frankly, the content of those conversations are for either Mr Pyne or Senator Madigan to reveal, not for me or you to reveal.

Senator KIM CARR: I am just going from the public record. The minister has developed a propaganda campaign over some length of time and then sought to blame the crossbenchers for the request.

Senator Birmingham: Senator Carr, I take issue with the description of a propaganda campaign. This is a factual campaign to put to bed some of the lies that you in particular and others in your party have been spreading about the government's higher education reforms.

CHAIR: Thank you, Minister. Senator KIM CARR: I will ask you to take this on notice: will the Minister for Education apologise to

Senator Madigan for the outrageous slur that he has passed upon him? Senator Birmingham: As I said before, I do not believe it is my place to reveal the content of private

conversations between Mr Pyne and any other crossbenchers—Senator Madigan or anybody else. They are private conversations. They are a matter for those two parties. It is a matter for them to choose whether such information is revealed. The minister, of course, often talks with the crossbenchers, particularly through this process, including Senator Madigan. I am sure if there are concerns that the two of them would have discussed them. But that is a matter for the two of them.

Senator KIM CARR: Can I take you, Madam Secretary, back to the estimates of 14 November, 2014? I raised this question of this advertising campaign. I asked you a specific question on many occasions, in fact. I would ask you to have a look at page 83 of the Hansard, if you have it there.

Ms Paul: I am not sure, but anyway I know the exchange you are talking about. Senator KIM CARR: I asked you a direct question about whether the government has made a decision about

this advertising campaign. You said, 'No.' That is the word that appears in the Hansard. Have I misread that? Ms Paul: Yes. Senator KIM CARR: How have I misread that? Ms Paul: I do recall the exchange. It turned out that you, I think, were talking about something completely

different, which was a $3 million something or other. Senator KIM CARR: No, I was not. I was talking about this campaign. Ms Paul: Well, that is not how it reads on reflection. And I do recall the exchange. Anyway, to the extent that

I thought that you were talking about a potential campaign, I have reviewed my evidence and it is completely correct. I said that it was a matter for government. And it was a matter for government because I had not certified anything, the minister hadn't signed anything and the Special Minister of State hadn't signed anything et cetera. So we were exactly at that point. So I am comfortable with—



Senator KIM CARR: You are comfortable that the government had made no decision on 14 December, yet tender documents had been issued and contracts had actually been signed. Is that correct? Had contracts been signed by that date?

Ms Paul: I do not think I have the whole run here, but you are actually talking about a $2.5 million campaign which turned out to be—

Senator KIM CARR: No, I was not. I am sorry. There was an attempt made by officers to direct me to that. That is not what I asked you. On page 82 it says, 'I just want to know if the government is considering a television campaign.' A television campaign was specifically referred to. The first answer was, 'That is a matter for government.' I asked again: 'Is the government considering a campaign? And the minister said, 'That is a matter for the government.' I then said, 'So you are not considering it?' The minister said that she was just 'conjuring' up, and then there are various attempts to explain how I was responsible for the matters. Whether or not an invoice would be sent to us was said. So I was clearly talking about the same matters that the minister has referred to this morning. I asked again:

Senator KIM CARR: Is the government planning an advertising campaign? Ms Paul : That is a matter for government. Senator KIM CARR: Minister? Senator Payne: It is a matter for the minister. Senator KIM CARR: So no decision has been made? Ms Paul : It is a matter for government. Senator Payne: It is a matter for the minister. Senator KIM CARR: I am asking a question. Has a decision been made?

Your answer was, 'No.' I said:

Senator KIM CARR: I want to be clear about this. You are saying that a decision has not been made? Now, we are clearly talking about the television campaign. I have been in this committee for many years and I am very concerned that when I ask a specific question about an advertising campaign, which involves many millions of dollars, you say to me no decision has been taken when quite clearly a decision had been taken.

Ms Paul: I have reviewed that run of evidence, because we have both been here for a long time. I always want to be absolutely clear that I would never ever mislead the committee. I am comfortable with my evidence because with the point it was at that time, it may not have proceeded. I remember that time. It depends how good the creative is and it depends on how it comes back, et cetera. We had not finished the formal processes. So that is always an awkward point. Nothing had been announced. But I am absolutely confident with my evidence.

Senator KIM CARR: Madam Secretary, because the government has not announced the decision does not mean a decision has not been taken. Madam Secretary, because you haven't completed all of the processes of implementing a decision, that does not mean that the decision has not been taken.

Ms Paul: Yes, but there were steps to be had. I understand what you are saying— Senator KIM CARR: Come on! You had issued a tender document. Ms Paul: There were steps to be had before it was absolutely decided to have a campaign. Senator KIM CARR: I see. So when you issued a request for tender on 28 October, that was on speculation

was it? Ms Paul: Well, it depends on what the tender comes back with. If the creative hadn't been up to it, if the

government had decided, for example, that the timing was not correct for such a campaign. All of those things were still considerations to be had. I can absolutely assure you that all those things were still decisions to be had.

Senator KIM CARR: But hang on. On 16 October, a research contract had been entered into. Ms Paul: Yes, that is for market research. Senator Birmingham: That is for research, Senator. Ms Paul: So at the point that you are talking about, an RFQ had been let but hadn't been finished. So we didn't

even know how good the creative would be. Senator KIM CARR: I see. That was the basis for the creative work for the television campaign, which you

say no decision had been taken on.



Ms Paul: What if there is a range of decisions? What if the creative hadn't worked? What if the creative hadn't been assessed to be what would have met the needs of the market research and other needs? What if it had been decided that it was too late in the academic year?

Senator Birmingham: What if it had not been approved by the Special Minister of State on 3 December? What if it had not been approved by Minister Pyne on 2 December? Senator Carr, you went through all of those dates before, that of course will lead to a final decision.

Senator KIM CARR: With a purpose. Madam Secretary, did you not tell me before that the cabinet made a decision on 28 October?

Ms Paul: That is for expenditure. Senator KIM CARR: For expenditure. So no decision had been taken, yet approval had been made for the

expenditure? Ms Paul: Well, there has to be an approval for expenditure to enable the creative work to be done. But if the

creative work had not been up to it or if the government had decided the timing was not right because it was coming close to the end of the academic year of school year, for whatever reason, it may not have proceeded.

Senator KIM CARR: A decision had been taken. Senator Birmingham: I know that this is a novel concept for your party and the government you were part of,

but this government likes to make budget decisions before it decides to actually commit to actually spending the money and before it makes a final decision on spending the money.

Senator KIM CARR: Even when the parliament has rejected it, you are making a decision. But that is an aside. I am not particularly interested in the government's behaviour. We will deal with that in a minute. I am concerned about an officer of this department putting a proposition to this committee which I believe to be untrue. That is a real matter of concern.

Ms Paul: I can't agree with that. I have reviewed my evidence. I always deal with this committee with the greatest respect and it is absolutely my view that there were several steps to be taken which could have meant that a campaign did not happen. You are talking about television. It could have been decided not to do TV, et cetera. All of those decisions had not been taken. I am sorry that we were at that point in terms of your and my interplay, but it is the case that the TV thing may not have happened, the creative may not have been up to it, the timing may not have been right et cetera. Technically, it is not going to be a goer until the Special Minister of State signs it.

Senator Birmingham: Senator Carr, it is a serious allegation you have made. I think Ms Paul has rightly, appropriately and accurately defended the evidence she gave to this committee. You have read out an extensive part of Hansard, but at no point have you put a statement of Ms Paul's to this committee with the suggestion that it was in any way directly incorrect.

Senator KIM CARR: Yes, it is. Yes I have. Senator Birmingham: If you have such a particular statement where there is a need to correct the record— Senator KIM CARR: Yes. I have put that, Minister. Senator Birmingham: then I would invite you to put that exact statement and we can respond to the exact

statement rather than general allegations from you. Senator KIM CARR: Page 83 of the Hansard. It is a specific question. I asked, 'Has a decision been made?'

Ms Paul said, 'No.' That is a direct quote from the Hansard. That is clearly untrue. Ms Paul: That is after I said, 'That is a matter for government.' I said that many times. Indeed I said it after

that. Senator KIM CARR: Had a decision been made, Ms Paul? CHAIR: Excuse me, Ms Paul, did you finish giving your answer to Senator Carr? Ms Paul: Yes, I guess so. Senator KIM CARR: Thank you. Let's go on. CHAIR: Senator Carr, there are other senators needing questions. You have had 25 minutes. I might break

and go to Senator Ruston and then come back to you. Senator Rhiannon has some questions in this area, too. Senator Ruston.



Senator RUSTON: I want to go to the substance of the research and the advertising campaign that we are talking about, and not the politics of it all. In the first instance, why did the department or the government deem it necessary to even undertake this research and subsequently consider an advertising campaign?

Senator Birmingham: I want to be completely consistent here. I think that question, again, is fine because it is a preview to the research, in a sense. If we are going to get at some point into questions about the content of the research or the more detailed aspects of this issue, they rightly belong in outcome 3 under higher education, just as I said to Senator Carr before. But just as Senator Carr's questions have not crossed that line yet, nor I think is that question.

Senator RUSTON: Sure. I was just trying to get some context around it. Ms Paul: I think the context is quite long and comprehensive and goes back to when the department tended

university open days and so on. But I think we should have that discussion in outcome 3, because it then leads towards when the higher ed people are here. Because it was they who went to the open days and so on.

Senator RUSTON: Okay, I am more than happy to. CHAIR: Senator Rhiannon. Senator RHIANNON: You said earlier, Ms Paul, I think it was on 25 November, that it was determined that

the planned advertising campaign complied with guidelines. Principle 4 of the department's guidelines for expenditure on advertising state that they should be 'instigated on the basis of a demonstrated need…' Other than the government's desperation to pass its legislation, what was the demonstrated need for the advertising campaign?

Ms Paul: I would actually like to cover that in outcome 3. I need the higher education people here. They are not here for cross portfolio. The need goes back to the open days, et cetera, and the content of what the department found there and so on. So if that is okay, I think we will have the right people to give you a comprehensive answer.

Senator RHIANNON: So you do not want to comment on it? Ms Paul: I am happy to comment, but I think it would be useful to have the people who actually attended the

open days and so on. So I would suggest that that would be a good discussion for outcome 3. Senator RHIANNON: About the guidelines and how it fits in with the guidelines? Ms Paul: Yes, that is fine. Senator RHIANNON: Has the campaign been evaluated to determine its effectiveness? Ms Paul: There has been an initial evaluation, I think. Senator RHIANNON: When was that undertaken? Ms Gleeson: The formal evaluation for the campaign is currently underway. The campaign was completed on

14 February. It will be some weeks. Senator RHIANNON: I thought that Ms Paul said that there was a preliminary evaluation. Ms Gleeson: We had some top line results from the first part of the campaign. Senator RHIANNON: And what were they, please? Ms Gleeson: They are preliminary indicative results, which are still subject to a formal evaluation of the

whole campaign. This is from the first two weeks of the campaign. They seemed to suggest some decreases in the prevalence of myths and misconceptions about the higher education system and also some slight increases in awareness of the reforms. Further, campaign activity shows to be positively correlated to a correction in audiences misconceptions of the reforms. There was an increased awareness of government support for higher education and the mechanisms that will remain in place into the future and some increases in perceptions that the reforms will be beneficial to Australia.

Senator RHIANNON: How was that measured? Is it quantitative or based on focus groups? What sort of research did you undertake?

Ms Paul: I assume that it was qualitative. Ms Gleeson: It was. I think it was online tracking. I do not have the details here. The methodology for that— Ms Paul: Why don't we get that for the discussion this evening in outcome 3. Senator RHIANNON: If you could explain the research. Is it an online survey that you pick up? There are a

whole range of metrics these days. It would be useful to know.



Ms Paul: It is quite important to put it in context and we can do that. Senator RHIANNON: You may have said this earlier. I Just popped out at one point. What was the

objectives of the advertising campaign? Ms Paul: Broadly, it was to address misconceptions that were found to be out in the public from the market

research and from our visits from the open days. But we can go into the fine detail of that under outcome 3, if you like. Because some of that goes to—

Senator RHIANNON: I think that it would be useful for us to know the objective for when you run through your assessment. When you do your assessments, is it against your objectives? Is that how you work it?

Ms Paul: It is not us doing the evaluation. It is another company. Senator RHIANNON: Yes, but you set it out and put a job description to this company. Ms Paul: Based on the market research, that is right. That is how it works. Senator RHIANNON: So you are using your objectives and asking them to measure against the objectives. Is

that the case? Ms Paul: That is right. It is based on the market research. Senator RHIANNON: Can you go through the objectives now, please? Ms Gleeson: Of course, these were in accordance with principle 1 of the short-term interim guidelines on

information and advertising campaigns by Australian government departments and agencies. The campaign objectives of phase 1 were to counter myths and misconceptions about the current higher education system; to raise awareness of government support for higher education and the mechanisms that will remain in place into the future; to set the scene for the reforms; and to encourage audiences to seek further information about current government resources, assistance and financial support for Australian higher education.

Ms Paul: I think we may have already taken that on notice for Senator Carr. But we will take that on notice. Senator RHIANNON: Yes, for when we come back to outcome 3. Ms Paul: Just those objectives? Senator RHIANNON: Yes. Ms Paul: Sure. We will have to extract them but we will bring that back to outcome 3. Senator RHIANNON: Minister, is it common for governments to run advertising campaigns for policies that

have not gone through the parliament? They are effectively party policies because the bill has not been approved. Senator Birmingham: I do believe that the previous government did that at some length in a number of ways,

including in relation to the schools campaign. Senator RHIANNON: Does that make it right? Does that make it correct, Minister? Senator Birmingham: It certainly is not unusual for governments to seek to ensure that the public

understands what is occurring, especially in this case where there were concerns coming into the university year this year that students and families were being misled as a result of the public misinformation campaign being run by opponents to these reforms, including yourself, Senator Rhiannon, into thinking that somehow up-front fees would be applied. So it was felt important to make sure that students were reassured that there would be no up-front fees as a result of the reforms that the government was undertaking—that in fact we were expanding access in many ways. So, Senator Rhiannon, firstly to your direct question: no it is not unprecedented by any means. There are definitely examples in relation to other governments. Secondly, in terms of the need for it, there was absolutely a need to try to address some of the misconceptions that existed—even yours. I can quote from your speech on 29 October 2014. You said:

By raising university fees the Liberals and the Nationals are slamming the door on opportunity for millions of Australians. Coalition policy is about keeping the world as a place with haves and have-nots. All of that of course is creating the perception that somehow people would have to pay up-front fees, which is just completely untrue, Senator Rhiannon.

Senator RHIANNON: You do need to be accurate. I did not say that. You are now verballing us. I did not say that. I was very accurate.

Senator Birmingham: You are welcome to explain how the change that does not involve any up-front fees slams the door on opportunity for people to attend—

CHAIR: Point of order, Senator O'Neill.



Senator O'NEILL: I thought that the job we were doing was asking the questions of the minister and the department. It is extraordinary to have the minister now asking for an explanation of a senator to justify—

Senator Birmingham: Senator Rhiannon said that I was verballing her— CHAIR: Minister! Senator O'Neill has the call. Senator O'NEILL: I can only put it down to the aggressive defensive capacity within the minister at this

point of time. CHAIR: There is no point of order, Senator O'Neill. Senator Birmingham: There is no aggressive defensive capacity, Senator O'Neill. It is all done with a smile. CHAIR: Minister! That is not helpful. Senator O'Neill interjecting— Senator Birmingham interjecting— Senator Lines interjecting— CHAIR: Senator Lines! Senator LINES: You can waste time defending the indefensible. Senator Birmingham: Senator Lines, if you would like to debate the issues we can have a debate of the

issues. Senator Kim Carr interjecting— CHAIR: Senators and Minister! There is going to be plenty of time to talk about it. There is going to be plenty

of time across the chamber for 'He said; she said' and about $100,000 degrees. Senator Rhiannon. Senator RHIANNON: Minister, are you aware that at no time the government or anybody has disputed the

information that was put on the website www.whatwillmydegreecost.com.au? It got one million hits. Half a million people did the calculations. It provided a resource for the public to understand in the early days just after the budget the implications of this legislation, when your government, your minister, was not revealing to the public and to students and their families getting ready to come to university in 2015 what the real cost of their degree would be. Now, we have been quite clear and accurate at all times.

CHAIR: Do you have a question, Senator? Senator RHIANNON: Yes. I am asking him if he was aware that at no time was that information ever

challenged as incorrect? We have been the ones informing the public— CHAIR: Sorry, the question is? Senator RHIANNON: Was he aware that at no time the data that we provided publicly has been challenged? Senator Birmingham: Senator Rhiannon, most of what I have seen from you has been misinformation rather

than information. Senator RHIANNON: Can you identify where? CHAIR: Ms Paul looked like she had something to contribute. Ms Paul: I am not sure whether I dare, really. I have two points. One is the technical answer to your first

question about whether a campaign is allowed when the legislation hasn't been passed or enacted. The answer is yes, it is allowed. These guidelines allow it. Past guidelines have allowed it. I have certified such campaigns before. The interim guidelines say a cabinet decision which is intended to be implemented during the current parliament. That is the cover there. In terms of the Greens website, actually the department did find many flaws with it. We did have a discussion along these lines in the budget estimates of 2014. We could revisit those, although we would have to do it under outcome 3 because I would need people here. We did actually have a conversation and I think it is fair to refer to that.

Senator RHIANNON: Not specifically. So if the minister and Ms Paul can put on the record where it was inaccurate. You have said that I have misrepresented the legislation. You need to be accurate when you make those serious accusations.

Senator Birmingham: Senator Rhiannon, I have quoted you. But beyond that, if you would like us to go through errors in the Greens' figures, we can certainly attempt to do that tonight. I am also happy to take it on notice and come back with further evidence in relation to how the Greens have used figures misleadingly. I think that Mr Norton has said that your figures are misleading. I think if you look at the facts of what the UWA—

Senator RHIANNON: You need to say where.



Senator Birmingham: I will happily seek a quote, Senator Rhiannon. As I said, we can discuss the misleading Greens campaign in outcome 3 tonight at length. And I will also take it on notice for us to provide information about where it is misleading.

Senator RHIANNON: Excellent. Thank you, Chair. CHAIR: No worries. Senator O'Neill. Senator O'NEILL: Can I just clarify my request for that page? If you could table that now so that we could

actually see it. I am happy to get the document later, but that is a single page and it is pretty easy to photocopy. Ms Paul: It is embedded in a brief, so we will have to extract it. We will do it as soon as we can. Senator O'NEILL: Is it that hard? CHAIR: Can we try and get it out of the brief before lunch? Ms Paul: Yes, we can do that. Perhaps over morning tea. You just wanted the objectives, didn't you? Senator O'NEILL: Well, we want the whole document, as requested by Senator Carr. But that page now

would be helpful. Ms Paul: I am not sure what document you are referring to. Senator Carr asked for the ORIMA Research,

didn't you? Senator KIM CARR: I did. Senator Birmingham: Which Ms Paul took on notice. Ms Paul: I am not sure what document these objectives are in. But I will take on notice to look at what

document that is. Senator O'NEILL: And provide the full document. Ms Paul: I will take that on notice. Senator O'NEILL: And the early provision of the actual outcomes. Ms Paul: Of the objectives. Yes, I have got it. CHAIR: Senator Lines has one quick clarification. Senator LINES: Back to you, Ms Paul, in relation to child care. I want to seek assurances. You did say that it

was the same officials that we will meet at the next estimates for DSS. Will they answer questions which relate to matters before the program was transferred?

Ms Paul: Yes. So if you are interested in EYQF, for example, they are prepared to answer those questions. So, yes, that is right. They are on Friday morning. We did have that discussion.

CHAIR: Senator Carr. Senator KIM CARR: I presume that you will not have this in a readily available form. If you have I would be

delighted to take it now. I am interested to know the details of the media buy. Which outlets were utilised on what dates and how much was spent on each occasion? What languages were used? How many radio and television outlets were used and what did the social media campaign consist of?

Ms Paul: Yes, we can provide that on notice. Senator KIM CARR: In regard to the creative development, who is undertaking that role? Ms Gleeson: The name of the company is BCM Partnerships. Senator KIM CARR: How much is that contract for? Ms Gleeson: The budgeted amount for the creative development for the campaign was $2.3 million. Senator KIM CARR: How much was the total campaign again? Ms Paul: That was the budgeted amount. We should actually tell you what was spent. Ms Gleeson: Committed funds for creative development to date is $2.1 million. Senator KIM CARR: What is the total campaign budget? Ms Gleeson: It is the $14.6 million. Senator RUSTON: Didn't you read the response to your letter? Senator KIM CARR: It pays to actually ask. If you had a little bit more time here you would appreciate that.

Of that $14.6 million, is that $2.3 million is a subset of that? Ms Paul: Yes.



Senator KIM CARR: Thank you. Who is responsible for the website development? Ms Gleeson: That was done in-house by the department. Ms Paul: It was also done by the shared services centre that we buy some of our corporate services for—just

to be absolutely clear. There is a hopefully soon to be government-wide shared services centre from which we buy all sorts of corporate services, including web services.

Senator KIM CARR: Is that part of the media buy or is that a separate matter? Ms Paul: No. Senator KIM CARR: So what is the $2.3 million spent on? Can you take me through that line by line? Ms Paul: It would be spent broadly on exactly what you have asked for—that is, the creatives for the TV ads

and any type of actual ads are developed in that creative. Senator KIM CARR: Can we get a breakdown of the difference between the radio and TV on that? Ms Paul: Sure. It should be possible. Senator KIM CARR: What was the date on which you selected BCM Partnerships to undertake this work? Ms Gleeson: BCM Partnerships' contract was signed with the department on 19 November. Ms Paul: And that was to develop the creative. Senator KIM CARR: There was a reference in your letter to the contact centre support. What does that

involve? Ms Gleeson: That is the departments hotline, if you like. There is a dedicated higher education telephone

number. Senator KIM CARR: It is a call centre, is it? Ms Gleeson: Call centres. Senator KIM CARR: How much is that cost? Ms Paul: The budget for this campaign is as you see it in my letter—$500,000. That contact line has been in

existence for a long time. It is currently outsourced. So it is just the higher ed. It was not created for this campaign, if that is a clearer way of putting it.

Senator KIM CARR: So that $500,000 referred to is a specific allocation for the call centre to undertake this work?

Ms Paul: Correct. Senator KIM CARR: How many calls have you received? Ms Gleeson: I think that it is in the order of 134 calls. Senator KIM CARR: 134 calls? We spent $500,000 on a call centre and got 134 calls? Ms Paul: No, just to clarify: my letter, as you would be aware, is an overall budget. That was the overall

budget, for example, for the creative development. In my letter it was $2.3 million and yet Ms Gleeson has already told you so far the commitment—not even a spend which will be a lesser figure again—is $2.1 million. So clearly the contact centre—which as I say is a pre-existing contact centre where we are quite clear that we pay for volume—wouldn't have spent anything like $500,000 if that is where we are. The hits have been more to the website and so on. So we will not spend that $500,000. We can take on notice when the campaign is finished how much was actually spent.

Senator KIM CARR: How many people are employed in the call centre? Ms Paul: I do not know. We will have to take that on notice. I think through the shared services centre we

contract out for a whole lot of different lines. Senator KIM CARR: But you have been allocated $500,000, so you must be able to give us an indication of

how many people have been employed in this call centre. Ms Paul: They are the people who have always been employed to answer higher education questions. I will

take it on notice. Senator KIM CARR: How much do you pay the call centre on an annual basis? Ms Paul: I have no idea. I'll take it on notice. Senator KIM CARR: What other work to they do for you?



Ms Paul: I will take that on notice, too. I am not completely sure. I think we have always had, in every iteration, a contact centre or we have outsourced to contact centres.

Senator KIM CARR: So you should be able to tell me how much you spend on that if it has been long established.

Ms Paul: Yes, we will. Senator KIM CARR: The 134 calls that you have received, from what dates does that occur? Ms Gleeson: It is over the period of the campaign. Senator KIM CARR: So give me the dates, please. Ms Gleeson: I will take that on notice. Senator KIM CARR: What is the nature of the calls? Ms Paul: We would definitely have to take that on notice. I do not think we would have that with us. I am

happy to do so. Senator KIM CARR: What, they were people ringing up complaining about the Labor Party, were they? Ms Paul: I am happy to take it on notice. Senator Birmingham: I get plenty of those sorts of calls, Senator. Senator KIM CARR: Yes, but you don’t get paid $500,000. Ms Paul: They won't have been paid $500,000. That is the budget. Senator KIM CARR: How much have you spent to date on the call centre? Ms Paul: I will take that on notice. Senator KIM CARR: On the bottom of page 1 of your letter, Ms Paul, there are six line items. Are there any

other costs associated with this campaign? Ms Paul: We have said 'other' costs. This is the comprehensive list. Senator KIM CARR: That is what I am asking. What are the other costs? You say 'other costs' of $200,000.

What is that? Ms Gleeson: That is a budgeted amount. We talk about the 'other' category, including costs for items such as

pull-up banners and also for pitching fees. Senator KIM CARR: What is a pitching fee in this context? Ms Gleeson: A pitching fee is a fee that the department pays to the companies that have been invited to tender

for the creative concepts. So it is to cover some of their costs. Ms Paul: It is because they have done the creative work before they pitch. Senator KIM CARR: Has the market research service been acquitted yet? Ms Gleeson: No, not completely. Senator KIM CARR: How much has been spent on market research services? Ms Gleeson: I would need to take that on notice. Ms Paul: Do you want to know how much has been committed? Senator KIM CARR: Yes. Ms Gleeson: Committed funds in terms of research on the campaign is in the order of $685,576. Senator KIM CARR: Thank you. So there remains further monies to be spent for market research. Is that the

case? Ms Gleeson: There are uncommitted and underspent funds. Ms Paul: We do not plan to do more, though, at the moment. Senator KIM CARR: Is it intended to have further market research to spend those unspent funds? Ms Paul: Not at present, but the budget remains there in case there is more to do. But not at present, no. We

are not undertaking any market research. Senator KIM CARR: How much has been committed on the website? Ms Gleeson: It is $245. Senator KIM CARR: So you have $1.3 million allocated. When is the rest going to be spent?



Ms Paul: I do not know. We might need to take that on notice. I'm not sure why there is a difference there. I think possibly because we did it in-house.

Senator KIM CARR: In my experience, getting $1.3 million out of Finance for a website would be an interesting experience in itself. Getting $1.3 million for a website development is quite a lot of money, especially when you are doing it in-house

Ms Paul: Yes. Senator KIM CARR: I presume that was the proposition you put to the Department of Finance when this

proposition went forward. Ms Paul: I can't remember. Senator KIM CARR: Did you tell them you have a contract or that you are going to do it in-house? Ms Paul: I can't remember. I do not know. I'm happy to take it on notice. Clearly, we have not spent $1.3

million and we are unlikely to do so because it has been done in-house. In-house meaning through the shared services centre arrangement.

Senator Birmingham: That may go back to the point I was making earlier, which is that this government likes to budget before it spends. Ideally, expenditure is kept within the budget. If as the processes are undertaken there become ways to—

Senator Kim Carr interjecting— Senator Birmingham: Senator, I would like to finish my answer. Senator O'Neill interjecting— Senator Birmingham: I would like to finish my answer, Senator O'Neill. If there are ways during the

development of a program for the government to achieve efficiencies, then that of course is welcomed by the government.

Senator KIM CARR: Thank you. How much of the media buy has actually been spent? Of the $9.5 million, how much of that has been allocated?

Ms Gleeson: As of yesterday, committed funds for the media buy were $6.2 million. Ms Paul: Note that we are saying 'committed', which gives you the bigger number than what has actually been

spent. But you understand— Senator KIM CARR: I do understand the difference. Ms Paul: Of course. Senator KIM CARR: So there are unspent funds up to $9.5 million, minus the $6.2 million. Is that right? Ms Gleeson: Correct. Senator KIM CARR: So you still have a few more million to go. Is that for stage 2 of the campaign? Ms Paul: It could be that that will be considered later. It is not under active consideration at the moment. Senator KIM CARR: The part that is called 1B, is that— Ms Paul: That has already happened. Senator KIM CARR: And there is a second tranche of advertising to come, isn't there? Ms Paul: There could be, particularly if the legislation goes through and so on. There may be and it does

allow for that. But that is not being considered now, obviously. Senator KIM CARR: Should the legislation not go through, because this has already been rejected once, is

this campaign intended to continue? Ms Paul: The two parts which have been certified and decided on by the Special Minister of State are

complete. So anything further is a matter of the government. Senator KIM CARR: So there has been an underspend—that would be a fair description—in regard to the

media buy and market research. What about creative development? Has that been fully committed? Ms Paul: I think we have been through that. Senator Birmingham: I think you heard before it is $2.1 million against $2.3 million. Senator KIM CARR: So all of that underspend is to go back to Finance, is it? Ms Paul: I don't know. It is good that we have underspent. That is always a good thing, of course. Any further

activity will be a matter for government to consider.



Senator KIM CARR: A stage 2 is intended, is it not? Ms Paul: Yes, there is the notion that if the legislation does go through, then usually you would have some

sort of information about what that means. As you say, there were two parts to this campaign—1A and 1B—and they have been completed.

Senator KIM CARR: The decision on the rollout of stage 2 will not be made until after the Senate votes, is that the case?

Ms Paul: I would imagine so. That is a matter for the government. Senator KIM CARR: Where is the government finding the money to run this particular campaign? Where is

the $14.6 million coming from? Ms Paul: I cannot recall. Can I take that on notice? Senator KIM CARR: It should be pretty straightforward. Ms Paul: No, not necessarily. I would prefer to take it on notice. Senator KIM CARR: Will you be able to give me an answer today? Ms Paul: I should be able to. Senator KIM CARR: $5.5 million has been put to me as the budget for phase 2. Is that correct? Ms Paul: Is it correct in saying that is what is unspent at the moment? Yes. Clearly it sits there. But as I just

said, whether that is put to a further purpose will be something for the government to consider. Senator KIM CARR: Minister, is it the case that phase 2 of this campaign will not proceed if the vote in the

Senate is lost—if there is a vote in the Senate? Senator Birmingham: I am not going to deal in hypotheticals. The government wants to get its legislation

through and continues to engage constructively with the Senate to try to get its legislative package through. That is the new legislative package that was introduced last year. If you would ever like to have constructive conversations about it, we would welcome engagement with you as well.

Senator KIM CARR: On all the indications, Minister, you would be aware that the Senate is not likely to pass this legislation. So when will the Senate actually be getting the opportunity to vote this legislation down?

Senator Birmingham: Senator Carr, you may like to play Nostradamus when it comes to how the Senate handles these matters. I am surprised you do that, because you have been in this place longer than I, and I have certainly learnt over the years never to pre-empt what the Australian Senate may do. It can be a very unpredictable beast.

Senator KIM CARR: When will it be actually listed so we can get this matter resolved? Senator Birmingham: As you well know, it is before a couple of Senate inquiries at present, and it would be

against standing orders for it to be listed until they report. Senator KIM CARR: That is right. So when will it be listed? Immediately after those reports? Senator Birmingham: It will be a matter for the government to determine. Senator KIM CARR: The minister has indicated that if he can't get it through by March, then he is going to

withdraw the bill. Is that still his position? Senator Birmingham: I will happily take that on notice. Senator KIM CARR: Can I go to the specifics of the campaign, because you have signed off on some

matters, Madam Secretary. The government claims in its advertisements that the package will pay about half the costs of students. Can you confirm that?

Ms Paul: Yes, we can. But I would like to do that under outcome 3 because I need the people who have done the analysis which sat behind the advice to me and on which my certification is based. So that is best done with the higher ed folk in outcome 3. I am happy to do so.

Senator KIM CARR: There are a series of matters I want to go to there. They go to the question about the basis on which you have certified.

Ms Paul: Yes, that is fine. Senator KIM CARR: I think we are entitled to know what the calculation was that you made in certifying

that. Ms Paul: Sure.



Senator KIM CARR: There is a claim, for instance, that one in every five dollars of additional revenue raised by higher education providers from fees will be used to support access for disadvantaged students. Is that verifiable? How we verify that?

Ms Paul: Well, let's take that in outcome 3. You are going to the content of the reforms now. That is a discussion for outcome three.

CHAIR: Senator Ruston has one quick question, I think. I just want to ensure that we are sticking with cross portfolio. I note that ACARA and AITSL, the next two agencies, are in the room. Senator Ruston.

Senator RUSTON: Ms Paul, in response to some of Senator Carr's questions you made reference to the fact that this wasn't a particularly unusual situation and that you have certified past campaigns that were similar. Can you give us some sort of comparison? In listening to some of the questioning, I'm thinking that some sort of unusual thing is occurring here. Can you give us some historical perspective on what has happened in the past?

Ms Paul: The certification by the CEO is always a feature of any campaign. So I guess over the 10 years I have been a secretary, I will have certified a large number. I can't remember all of them. There has been nothing else since the change of government. The most recent one I think would have been the national plan for school improvement under the former government. That was then changed to the Better Schools. That was a $21 million campaign. That was what I was obliquely thinking of when Senator Rhiannon asked about whether it was okay to do a campaign before legislation passed. The former guidelines allowed that, and I said that the guidelines allow it. That campaign would be an example of where a campaign started before the Australian Education Act was passed under the former government. Before that it would have been, I think, when there were some big child care ones of about the same price as this budget, but not higher than the spend of this. They were to alert people to the availability of child-care rebates and so on. There were two of those, I think. All of those would probably be more expensive than this one has been. I could go back but I can't actually remember.

CHAIR: You might answer in detail in outcome 3. Senator RUSTON: Yes. I was trying to get a sense of similar campaigns. So if you look at the $21 million

Gonski Better Schools campaign, it would be really quite interesting to know because we have already said that we are going to unpack some of this detail at outcome 3. I would be interested in unpacking that and whether we could have a look at the differences and the similarities between the two, so that we do get a perspective of whether this is a normal sort of a campaign.

Ms Paul: Yes. This one has gone along exactly the same processes. We always go through the same processes of seeking funds, doing market research, having a tender and then the creative and then the certification et cetera. I cannot remember exactly the guidelines under the former government but, nonetheless, the steps are all the same. That most recent one, which I suppose I can remember better than the others, was of course much bigger and it also started before the legislation was passed.

CHAIR: Senator Carr. Senator KIM CARR: How many pieces of advertising have you been involved with that involved legislation

that had actually been defeated in the parliament? Ms Paul: I was talking to Senator Rhiannon about a decision which is intended to be implemented during the

current parliament, and of course that is absolutely the case. The certification met that criteria and continues to do so.

Senator KIM CARR: On how many occasions have you signed off on an advertising campaign around a piece of legislation that has actually been defeated by the parliament?

Senator Birmingham: Senator Carr, an amended bill, a new bill, was introduced into the House of Representatives late last year.

Senator KIM CARR: At that time, the minister said it was 90 per cent the same. Senator Birmingham: That means it was 10 per cent different, Senator Carr. Senator KIM CARR: The parliament made a call on this matter. Madam Secretary, how many occasions

have you signed off on matters to be the subject of an advertising campaign when the parliament has rejected it? Ms Paul: I do not think that is the situation that we find ourselves in. Senator KIM CARR: I would have thought the vote last year was pretty clear. Senator Birmingham: We have a new bill before the parliament, Senator Carr. You I am sure well know that

there are occasions in the life of the Australian parliament where it passes legislation that it has previously not



passed, frequently in a different form after some amendments. Most recently, I can think of the repeal of the carbon tax being one such example. That took a couple of goes. But that was ultimately passed by the Senate.

Senator KIM CARR: The interim guidelines require campaign materials to 'enable the recipients of the information to distinguish between facts, comment, opinion and analysis.' That is a requirement of the matter. I note your campaign website, www.highered.gov.au, includes a claim that the government is providing more support, for instance, in regard to student services, which of course quite clearly it is not because the Higher Education and Research Reform Bill introduced into the house on 3 December outlined cuts to higher education funding of $451 million for the forward estimates and $5.8 billion over a ten-year period. The website actually says that, 'the department does not make any representation or warranty about the accuracy, reliability, currency or completeness of any material contained on this website.' I'm just wondering how you get the two propositions to line up.

Ms Paul: You are now entering into the debate about the reforms, and I think that is probably more appropriate when we have the high ed people here for outcome 3. I am quite happy to go through it then.

Senator KIM CARR: But there is quite clearly a disclaimer on the government's own website, on the department's website, as to its accuracy.

Ms Paul: I think all websites have that disclaimer. I do not think there is anything new about that. I am happy to check.

Senator KIM CARR: But you could sign off on a series of highly contentious advertising campaigns where the parliament has specifically rejected the government's proposal and still think it is consistent with the normal operations, as the secretary of the department.

Ms Paul: You are putting an opinion to me— Senator KIM CARR: I am asking the question: is that consistent? Ms Paul: The processes we followed have been absolutely clear and I am quite happy to go through the bits

that go to a policy consideration later on in outcome 3. Basically, the story is our people attended 46 open days in the middle of the year, talking to 8,000 prospective students and families. Many of those people thought that HECS was going to be abolished and that they would have to pay upfront fees. The market research confirmed that. The campaign is based around the market research in the normal way that creatives are based around the market research. I am confident in the certification. But I'm quite happy to have a longer chat about policy matters later.

Senator KIM CARR: Given you have only received 134 calls, doesn't that contradict the suggestion there was deep or widespread concern?

Ms Paul: I think most activity has been towards the website. Senator Birmingham: Perhaps, Senator Carr, it says that those seeing the campaign information were

appropriately reassured that the statements you and others have been making were false. Senator KIM CARR: Tell me about the campaign Facebook page. When was that created? Ms Paul: We will have to take that on notice. Senator KIM CARR: Is that part of the campaign? Ms Paul: No, I don't think so. The campaign is the paid advertising. You could think about that as similar to

the website. Senator KIM CARR: Can you tell me the date the Facebook page went live? Ms Paul: That is what I think we have just taken on notice. Senator KIM CARR: What is the cost of the creation of that particular— Ms Paul: I suspect it is part of the website, is it? Ms Gleeson: It has a zero cost associated with it. Senator KIM CARR: And the cost of maintenance of the campaign Facebook page? Ms Gleeson: It has zero cost, Senator. Senator KIM CARR: Why is that? Are there no staff that monitor it. Ms Gleeson: Staff internally. Senator KIM CARR: Yes, but there is still a cost. Ms Paul: Yes, but it is not part of the $14.6 million.



Senator KIM CARR: So that is a separate cost, is it? How many staff would monitor the Facebook page? Ms Paul: Probably not very many, but we take that on notice. I suppose you could count that as part of the

$14.6 million under website development. But as it has happened, we have managed to do it with existing resources. However, if you would like me to cost up out of the website development $1.3 million how much has been spent in terms of staff time internally, I am happy to do that. It might give you what you are looking for.

Senator KIM CARR: What about the Twitter username—@HighEdGovAu? What date was that created? Ms Gleeson: These were all timed to be in the public arena for the commencement of the first part of the

campaign. The date that we launch that. But I would like to take that on notice and confirm it because it may have been a few hours prior. I would just like to be accurate with the timing.

Senator KIM CARR: I would obviously be interested in the cost of the Twitter page. What was the date the higher education hotline was actually established?

Ms Gleeson: It was already in existence. Ms Paul: When was it scripted? I think what you probably want to know is when was the existing hotline

scripted for this. Senator KIM CARR: Yes. Ms Paul: We will take that on notice. Senator KIM CARR: What evaluation processes had been undertaken? Ms Paul: We have been through that. Senator KIM CARR: Yes, I know you were asked the question from Senator Rhiannon. Ms Paul: Basically the answer was that there is a company currently doing an evaluation and they have not

finished yet. The initial top line results were described by Ms Gleeson. Ms Gleeson: Some decreases in the prevalence of myths and misconceptions about the higher education

system and some slight increases in awareness of the reforms. Senator KIM CARR: What are the percentages? Do you have the details there? Ms Paul: These are top line, so it doesn't have it. Ms Gleeson: We do not have a formal report yet. Ms Paul: The evaluation is currently underway. Senator KIM CARR: On what date was that undertaken? Ms Paul: We can take it on notice. There were two stages. Why don't we give you both. Senator KIM CARR: Can you tell me, in terms of your research how many people actually believed that the

HECS scheme had been abolished? Ms Paul: It was prevalent. I would have to take on notice that percentage, but it was absolutely prevalent and

quite confrontingly so. In the 46 open days and experiences— Senator KIM CARR: No, in your research. Ms Paul: And then also in the research. Senator KIM CARR: I have noticed in your letter that the claim was made about 8,000 students over 41

days. Is that your assertion? The department spoke to 8,000 students? Ms Paul: Yes. That is our estimate Senator KIM CARR: And 8,000 students had told you that they thought that HECS was being abolished? Ms Paul: I did not say that. I said it was a prevalent view. We have said that in evidence before. At

supplementary estimates we said that. Senator KIM CARR: How do you determine prevalence? Ms Paul: I think that is a discussion for tonight, actually. Because the people who attended those will be here

under outcome 3. You will get fuller details there. But it was certainly prevalent. Their market research found that, too. But we can go into all of that tonight, if you like.

Senator KIM CARR: The guidelines require you to do specific things. Campaign materials have to identify a target audience. How did you test the material with targeted audiences?

Ms Gleeson: We had an external provider, an expert research company, that we engaged to undertake concept and refinement testing.



Senator KIM CARR: Who was that? Ms Gleeson: That was ORIMA Research. Senator KIM CARR: The same crowd. Ms Gleeson: Correct. Senator KIM CARR: How much did they get paid that? Ms Gleeson: The total value of the contract is up to $385,576. Senator KIM CARR: So their $385,000 was just to test the campaign materials, was it? Ms Gleeson: To do concept testing before commencement and also prior to placement of advertisements in

the public arena to make minor refinements based on feedback from focus groups. Senator KIM CARR: What exactly was tested? Ms Gleeson: The creative concepts. There were television advertisement and radio scripts. Any material that

was placed in paid channels through the Australian government master media agency was tested through this process.

Ms Paul: It always is. It is after the market research and so on. Senator KIM CARR: What dates were they tested? Ms Gleeson: The creative concepts were tested with target audiences between 12 to 14 November, 2014. That

was concept testing. Ms Paul: There is a 1B, so they have been tested again. Senator KIM CARR: But, Ms Paul, on 14 November you are telling me that no decision had been taken. Ms Paul: That is absolutely right. Back to this one, you remember the date of actually signing up with the

creative company was after we had been in here and I said, what if those concepts had not worked. What if the government had determined that it was the wrong timing', et cetera. We have been through this.

Ms Gleeson: In fact, the concept testing was part of the evaluation panel's consideration as to who to appoint. Ms Paul: Which came afterwards. Senator KIM CARR: The timing issue really is only whether or not you did it before Christmas, wasn't it? Ms Paul: There were two phases as it happened. There was one before Christmas and one after. The sort of

considerations are if it is too late in the academic year, et cetera. It was decided to go with a couple of weeks. But all of those things had not been decided at that point.

CHAIR: Any other questions? Senator KIM CARR: Yes, I have quite a few other questions. CHAIR: In cross portfolio? Senator KIM CARR: Yes. CHAIR: Are they the ones you want to do with tonight in the appropriate outcome? Senator O'NEILL: I have some cross portfolio. CHAIR: Thank you, Senator O'Neill. Senator O'NEILL: I want to clarify a question before I move off the line that Senator Carr has been

exploring. Has there been any creative work done for the second phase? Ms Gleeson: No, no creative work has been undertaken for a second phase. Ms Paul: I think we spoke to that before. Senator O'NEILL: There is a little bit of money left though, isn't there? Ms Paul: Well, that is a good thing, isn't it? But what use it will be put to is not yet determined. Senator O'NEILL: Can I go to questions about the MYEFO statement? This is a question about that

statement on page 27 that goes to the functional and efficiency reviews of major government bodies. The statement indicates that the government is going to commence in-depth reviews and the reviews are going to determine whether the resources and functions performed are aligned with the government's policies. It indicates that the departments of health and education, other than higher education, are going to be the first bodies to be reviewed. My question in relation to the department's functional review is, which entity will conduct the review?

Ms Paul: It is to be conducted by an independent review team.



Senator O'NEILL: Can I have a little bit more information about that, Ms Paul? Ms Paul: Sure, what would you like? Senator O'NEILL: Who are the independent review team? Ms Paul: Yes. Nous Group consulting formed the independent review team and Jennifer Westacott has lead

review oversight. Senator O'NEILL: 'Nous Group'—is that what you said? N-O-U-S? Ms Paul: Yes. Senator O'NEILL: And how many consultants were given the opportunity to put in a bid for this review? Ms Paul: That was left with the independent oversight reviewer, Jennifer Westacott. Senator O'NEILL: It is in the hands of Ms Westacott, this decision—is that correct? Ms Paul: Yes. And I have just been reminded that we did run a small process for interest, if— Senator O'NEILL: Could you just take me through that please? Ms Paul: Sure. Senator O'NEILL: And if we could just go back to Jennifer Westacott getting this position? Talk me through

the whole but history of what is going on here? Ms Paul: Sure. I will start. Choosing the lead oversight person was a matter for ministers Pyne and Cormann.

That is their decision, based on advice from us. Senator O'NEILL: And did you provide a number of names for the ministers to consider? Ms Paul: Yes, we did. Senator O'NEILL: Would you be able to provide us with that list? Ms Paul: Probably not, because it is to do with a decision that relates to cabinet. But I will certainly take it on

notice—more than happy to take it on notice. Senator O'NEILL: Are you saying that is confidential? Ms Paul: Only in that this comes out of a cabinet process. I will take it on notice and it may be absolutely fine

to give to you. I am happy to do that. Senator O'NEILL: And what were the criteria on which you created that short list that we hope you may be

able to furnish? Ms Paul: It was to meet the particular terms of reference and to be able to do a review within a certain time et

cetera. All those things were taken into account. Senator O'NEILL: I will come back to the terms of reference. There were a number of names proffered,

Jennifer Westacott was the selection of both ministers—Pyne and Cormann— Ms Paul: Yes. Senator O'NEILL: And the date at which that occurred. Ms Paul: Gosh—can we take that on notice for you? Senator O'NEILL: Yes, please. And there is this contract arrangement? Ms Paul: Yes—I will have to clarify that too, actually. Senator O'NEILL: And how much is that contract worth? Ms Paul: I think the lead reviewer is working essentially pro bono. Then, of course, Nous Group will be paid

for by us. We can supply those arrangements on notice, if you like. Senator O'NEILL: Yes—how much that contract is, and who else tendered for the work. Ms Paul: Sure. Senator O'NEILL: And the criteria on which Nous Group was selected. Ms Paul: Sure—we can take all that on notice. Senator O'NEILL: Wonderful. Ms Monkely? Ms Monkley: Just going to the firms that we approached in the lead-up to making our selection: we

approached six different companies and asked them to provide a response on the basis of the terms of reference of the review. Firstly, we asked them to indicate whether they were interested in undertaking the review and then to



provide us with a response. We did not receive responses from all of them. As we worked with the reviewer we actually narrowed the field and that led to the Nous Group.

Senator O'NEILL: And the terms of reference that you are referring to: are they able to be provided to the committee now?

Ms Paul: I do not think they are in the public gaze, actually, but can I take that on notice? Senator O'NEILL: Because it would be— Ms Paul: Yes. Senator O'NEILL: Can I ask for the terms of reference? Ms Paul: Sure—I will take it on notice. Senator O'NEILL: And today, please. Ms Paul: We will see what we can do. Senator O'NEILL: What is the time line on this review—the process you have gone through? When did this

commence? What has gone on so far, and what is the forward program? Ms Paul: It only commenced recently. We would have to get a date but, let's say, several weeks ago—a

couple of weeks ago. I am not sure— Senator O'NEILL: In the post-Christmas period? Ms Paul: Post-Christmas—yes. Hopefully, it will be the case that the review team can report by the end of

March. Senator O'NEILL: So, by 31 March you are hoping to have a report back? Ms Paul: Yes, I believe so. Senator O'NEILL: Which department is overseeing this review? Ms Paul: We are. Well—sorry—the review reports to both ministers. Obviously, this department has the key

role, but we are also liaising with the Department of Finance very closely because the reporting line is to both ministers.

Senator O'NEILL: Ms Paul, were you engaged to highlight any areas of the department that you thought were particularly ripe for review?

Ms Paul: No. That was a decision of government, and indeed it has changed because of the MoG change before Christmas. So the scope is the scope of the current department minus the higher education area.

Senator O'NEILL: How much has been allocated to this task? How much are Nous Group going to get? Ms Paul: It is not so much a matter of allocating, because, as I say, the lead reviewer is working largely pro

bono. We have already taken on notice the sort of payment arrangements for now, so we will put that on notice for you.

Senator O'NEILL: Do you have any ballpark numbers? Ms Paul: Not yet. Senator O'NEILL: Is there anything you want to add now that you have had that further conversation there? Ms Paul: No, that is fine. I was just looking at what is already public, and Mr Cook is just pointing out that

there is something on the Department of Finance's website about the Functional and Efficiency Reviews. You may have seen that or you may not have. He was just drawing my attention to that public—

Senator O'NEILL: If you could table that, that would be helpful while we are waiting for the actual terms of reference to surface.

Ms Paul: Sure. Senator O'NEILL: I understand there is a change in the structure of the department and a hiving off of child

care to the Department of Social Services, which, as an educator, raises incredibly concerning issues for me. Regardless of that, can I ask why the department's higher education division is excluded from the review currently?

Ms Paul: Just on the first point in relation to being an educator, which of course I know, as I said to Senator Lines, we retain the responsibility for preschool and for early learning. So that is important to say.

Senator O'NEILL: I think a fair bit of education happens before you reach age four, and probably critical education.



Ms Paul: Anyway, I thought I had better clarify that. Sorry, you were asking about the review? Senator O'NEILL: Yes. Why is higher education out of the review? Ms Paul: That was a decision of government. These decisions have been taken in the contestability efficiency

domain by government, I imagine. We would need to ask ministers, to be absolutely precise, but I presume it is because there are currently in front of parliament these significant reforms which would fundamentally change the nature of what we do if passed, and so perhaps the timing is not right to try to review something which could change.

Senator O'NEILL: So it is a little too chaotic in that space to undertake the review— Ms Paul: I hate to say chaotic. Certainly, there are large changes mooted, as you know. Senator O'NEILL: Turning to another element in the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, there are

revised payments estimates for government and non-government schools, which are expected to increase by $313 million in 2014-15 and then $78 million over four years. Why is this?

Ms Paul: We can, of course, take this under outcome 2, but unless I am about to be corrected it is because these figures are based on actuals, and that updates both enrolments and the loading factors that are the payments. I am sure that if I am getting anything wrong then Mr Cook will correct me. That is what it is about. It is about having estimates updated by actuals.

Senator O'NEILL: Given that explanation, can I ask you to provide the revised enrolment projections over the forward estimates.

Ms Paul: We may be able to do that in outcome 2 for you, if you like. Senator O'NEILL: I guess I am asking it now so that I can get a look at the information and then I might

have some further questions when we get to outcome 2. Ms Paul: Sure, if you like, but I do not know that we would have enrolment projections here now. No. We can

do that under outcome 2 this afternoon. Senator O'NEILL: If you can get some people to get it for you, and also for any period beyond— CHAIR: Mr Cook, did you have something to add? Ms Paul: Just to clarify, the very large difference is not necessarily enrolment, it is because the figures that we

used in the modelling originally were 2011 figures which were grown out by indexation over a number of years. When we used the figures, we used 2013 actual data. So it is not as much enrolment; it is a projection of what we thought the characteristics of students would have been about three, four or five years ago. The big difference in the actual shift is not enrolment; it is from actually using demographic details of students as opposed to indexation projections. We can still provide you with the information. I am just clarifying that a very large proportion is actually—

Senator O'NEILL: The data is pretty different from what you expected, by the sounds of things. If we can get the projections of any period beyond that for which the enrolled projections are available—just extend it out as far as you can.

Mr Cook: I think we answered the question on notice about that last time. I will see if there is updated information.

Senator O'NEILL: Could I also ask for the provision of a breakdown of the revised consequential changes in the Commonwealth share of base funding that is referred to in MYEFO, page 47?

Mr Cook: We would have to take that on notice. That will require a bit of arithmetic to work that through. I can give you the actual numbers, in terms of differences between the states and the Commonwealth, but we will have to do some maths on the share.

Senator O'NEILL: A breakdown of that revised set of consequential changes. Mr Cook: Yes, I can do that in outcome 2. Senator KIM CARR: How many questions are outstanding? Ms Paul: None, right now. Senator KIM CARR: Can you tell me why such a large number of questions were not received by the

committee until 9 February? Ms Paul: I can certainly tell you that—because I looked at that too—it was basically because of the Christmas

period. The change in machinery of government was really significant for us. It happened just before Christmas.



Key personnel were away et cetera, so apologies for that. But there they are now—I do not think there is anything left over. Last time we got them all done and in by the due date.

Senator KIM CARR: Yes, the department has in the past had a very good record here. Ms Paul: That is right. But it is not always that we go through such a significant machinery-of-government

change right at that moment and, as I said, key personnel being a way over summer and so on. Senator KIM CARR: Question on notice EDO 54315 is one where we sought advice on financial budget

committed project funding. It was not answered in its entirety. Can the department complete an Excel spreadsheet, that I provided to the secretariat, regarding budget and actual spends for the program from each year 2011-12 to 2013-14 and budget and committed contractual spending by program each year 2014-15 to 2017-18? That is material I have had in the past from you.

Ms Paul: Is it? I will take that on notice. I am happy to have a look at it. Senator KIM CARR: Would it be possible to get that spreadsheet completed by the dinner break this

evening? Ms Paul: I would doubt that very much indeed. Senator KIM CARR: You doubt that? Ms Paul: I doubt it. Not over all those years and everything, but I am happy to take it on notice. Senator KIM CARR: What happens, Ms Paul, when we have long delays is that I get anxious about

questions being taken on notice and not answered. Ms Paul: We have answered everything, but this is a really complex thing you are seeking. We will do it as

quickly as we can. Senator KIM CARR: You have done it before, and I think the finance people know the format. It is not a

particularly difficult task to undertake. Ms Paul: We are happy to do it as quickly as we possibly can. Senator KIM CARR: Thank you. Was there a problem, in the submitting of questions on notice, with a hold-

up at the minister's office? Ms Paul: Some questions on notice were in the minister's office because, as I said, key personnel were away.

That includes the minister's office as well. Naturally, they were also affected by the machinery of government and so on.

Senator KIM CARR: Yes. It just so happened that a number of the questions that were delayed were questions that I asked. I am just wondering whether there is any pattern there, or was it just a coincidence that the people away were the ones directly related to the higher education program?

Ms Paul: There is no pattern there to do with your questions. Senator KIM CARR: Were any of the answers changed in the minister's office? Ms Paul: I do not think so. They are our answers, but I can take that on notice, if you like. Senator KIM CARR: Could you? Question 392 regards contract description. You basically said to me, 'Read

the website.' I think you would appreciate we do that. Ms Paul: Sure. Senator KIM CARR: I would hate to think that is becoming a pattern with the answers to questions, whereby

we wanted an output or outcome from a contract. What possible basis would there be for the department simply to respond that we should read the website?

Ms Paul: I have not seen it yet. If your preference is for us to—even if it is on a website—extract it and put it into a form of answer, I am happy to note your preference.

Senator KIM CARR: That is not what I asked. I did not ask for stuff that is already on the website. I asked for an outcome. I am disappointed at the quality of the answer, is the proposition I am putting to you, Madam Secretary—because we can read a website.

Ms Paul: Sure. Senator KIM CARR: I asked for an outcome of a particular contract. Senator Birmingham: Senator, I have received many answers over the years referring me to websites,

including the AusTender website on occasion. I do not think referral to where information is in the public domain is unusual. Departments and governments generally accept that sometimes, in asking questions, senators may not



know where that information is already publicly available and so they steer them to the publically available information. Just like the spreadsheet you have given us—much of the information within it would already be publicly available, but you are asking the department to dedicate time and resources to complete that. It is something that Ms Paul has said they will take on notice and look at. I do not think it is incorrect—

Senator KIM CARR: And have provided— Senator Birmingham: Sometimes it is helpful over the longer term, once you know where to find the

information that is publicly available, you can find it yourself in a more timely manner rather than having to go through this process.

Senator KIM CARR: I appreciate your advice, Minister, but when I ask for a copy of a report I ask for a copy of a report. I should not be referred to the AusTender documents. We have had a long history here—over 20 years I have been able to share these matters in both government and opposition. I have also asked, Ms Paul, you would certify, departmental officials to answer questions even when we were in government.

I am concerned that a deterioration in the standard of answers provided—that may not be your problem. That is why I asked the question: 'Were these answers changed in the minister's office?' When I ask for a copy of a report I do not expect to be referred to the original tender notification on AusTender.

Ms Paul: We have answered the bit on outcomes and outputs, although probably not to your satisfaction. We did have a look at it and said it would be an unreasonable diversion of departmental resources. You are right, we have not provided the report, so I will take that piece away and have a look at how many of those have reports and whether they can be provided.

Senator KIM CARR: Thank you very much. I turn to another question about modelling. You will recall, Ms Paul, that on numerous occasions I have asked this of you, the secretary, and your officers what modelling you have undertaken for the higher education measures. You have, on numerous occasions—I can point to them—where you have basically said that it was part of some budget consideration. We made some calculations. Mr Griew, on other occasions has said they have not done the modelling, they have just checked out what other people have said. Answers of that type have been put to this committee.

I am surprised to read that the AAT, Mr Griew—I do not want to personalise this but I do want to indicate the officer who signed the documents—on behalf of the department prepared a written statement for a matter regarding an FOI request. Are you familiar with that written statement?

Ms Paul: No. Senator KIM CARR: The statement Mr Griew provided was a discussion on a range of documents that the

department actually had: question time briefs, hypothetical scenarios and a document providing assessment of the impact of deregulation on regional higher education.

Senator Birmingham: Could you table the statement, Senator Carr? Senator KIM CARR: The statement by Mr Griew is before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Senator O'SULLIVAN: Point of order, Chair. If we are to consider in context the questions to the minister

and secretary and the answers to them, it would be useful if we had a copy of the document that the senator is referring to. I would like to make a request for Senator Carr to table the document.

CHAIR: It is not a point of order, but it is a fair request. Senator KIM CARR: I am using the document. I will table it in due course. I am using the document at this

time. Ms Paul: Because I am not familiar with your references, we will probably need to refer this to outcome 3. CHAIR: Are you able to at least give the secretary the chance to peruse the document so that she can respond

appropriately to your questions? Senator KIM CARR: I am using the document at the moment. Sorry, who is asking to peruse the document?

Madam Secretary, you do not have a copy of the document; is that what you are saying? Ms Paul: No, I do not. Senator KIM CARR: All right. I will table that. You can go on to something else while I am doing that. Senator O'NEILL: I want to go to the discretionary grant. I know that Senator Carr was asking questions on

that. I want to take you to a couple of line items with regard to agriculture in education. I want to see if the data I have aligns with the schedule that you have in front of you with budgets of committed and not committed amounts. My question is about agriculture in education. There is $1 million in agriculture education but none committed.



Ms Paul: Sorry, what are you looking at? Senator Birmingham: Is this the tabled list of grants under the return to order of the Senate? Senator O'NEILL: This is FQ142615. Ms Paul: Okay, yes. I have that. Senator O'NEILL: It was proffered in response to question No. EDO543IS415. Ms Paul: Yes, okay. Senator O'NEILL: Can you just explain to me the line item 'agriculture in education'? Mr Cook: Agriculture in education was a $2 million election commitment. It was about the development of

resources to support learning and teaching for students around the importance of agriculture. I think Dr Atkins explained that we have contracted through Education Services Australia to begin that work. I understand that the first set of resources have already been provided. We are in the process now of finalising that contract in the next 12 months.

Ms Paul: I am just conscious that we are well into outcome 2 here rather than cross-portfolio. But that is a small matter.

CHAIR: Senator O'Neill, just for the sake of ensuring you get an adequate answer with the right people here, would you like to defer that? I know Senator Rhiannon has some questions for cross-portfolio.

Ms Paul: You have probably had the whole answer, but nonetheless I just wanted to mark that we are probably—

Senator O'NEILL: Okay. I am happy to come back to it. Senator RHIANNON: Ms Paul, just further to a discussion we started earlier today when one of your

colleagues was with you, we covered the objectives and she read out details about the research that had been undertaken. Could that document be tabled, please?

Ms Paul: Which details were those? Were those the objectives which we have already tabled— Senator RHIANNON: No. The objectives, I understood, we had agreed to. I just wanted to clarify that you

were also tabling the research that was undertaken. You said it was not quantitative— Ms Paul: The market research? Senator RHIANNON: Yes. Ms Paul: We took that on notice for Senator Carr. That was the market research. Senator RHIANNON: Will that be released today? Ms Paul: I have taken it on notice. Senator RHIANNON: It would obviously be useful for all of us to have it before outcome 3. Ms Paul: Yes. I have taken that on notice. If we can do it before outcome 3 we will. I have taken it on notice

and we will do our very best. Senator O'NEILL: I am interested to find out the cost of the change of machinery of government that has

happened since the early childhood section has been hived off to the Department of Social Services. I would like to know the decision making around that and the costs associated with the change.

Ms Paul: Obviously it was a government decision. I do not have the cost in front of me, but for the much, much larger change of the change of government, which meant my former, former department demerged in five directions, the costs were almost negligible because these days basically everything is electronic. The only things that you actually have to pay for are business cards. We went through that last time. This time it would be exactly the same except much, much smaller. There are probably a few costs in paying for the contractors that move people from building to building and that sort of thing, but that is it.

Senator O'NEILL: So are we looking at a matter of hundreds, thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars? Ms Paul: Probably hundreds. Senator O'NEILL: Just hundreds? Ms Paul: That is my recollection of the bigger machinery-of-government change last time. Senator O'NEILL: I want to go to the decision making around that change, particularly in light of the nature

of education. We have had K to 12. Increasingly over the years people have realised that some of the ideas about education and the segmentation of learning are retrograde in terms of the outcomes of education. What rationale, from an education point of view, allowed the education of zero to threes and zero to fours be hived off to DSS?



Senator Birmingham: Probably questions of that nature are best directed to the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, representing the Prime Minister, because he is responsible for the setting of ministerial structures and the overall setting of government structures.

Senator O'NEILL: This was a decision by the Prime Minister? Senator Birmingham: Senator O'Neill, can I finish my answer? Yes, the Prime Minister takes responsibility

for ministerial changes in the government and the responsibilities that flow from that. The Prime Minister made the decision to bring vocational education and training and skills back into the education portfolio to give it a dedicated ministry, which I am responsible for. The Prime Minister equally determined that early years learning, as Ms Paul has described before, would stay in the Department of Education but that the funding arrangements around childcare rebates, childcare benefits and those types of structures would be transferred to the Department of Social Services, who administer many such payments and arrangements for the government.

Ultimately this was all part, as the Prime Minister said at the time, of a decision to get the focus of government particularly on to jobs and families. The dedicated focus on vocational education and training is a central part of our job strategy—and it will feature in the Prime Minister's upcoming job statement, I am sure—and pursuing integrated policies around family support across the social services portfolio is, again, appropriate. It in no way changes the government's commitment to high education outcomes throughout people's lives. It simply reflects where the government sees appropriate that certain programs and functions are best managed. When it comes to the childcare rebate and childcare benefit, which are essentially family assistance payments to help people's participation in the workforce and so on, they are at the heart of a broad structure of family support payments. As you know, the government is going through a—

Senator O'NEILL: Long answer! CHAIR: Minister Birmingham and Senator O'Neill, it being 11 o'clock the committee will now break for

morning tea. Proceedings suspended from 10:59 to 11:16

Senator O'NEILL: My question arises out of the discussion about the hiving off of the education of children up to the age of four.

Ms Paul: Up to three, really. Senator O'NEILL: It is a very significant learning period for children. Much of the literature in education,

psychology and sociology emphasises the significance of that period for children's learning—not only from the perspective of impacting on outcomes but also from the perspectives of policy, decision-making and investment in learning. A dollar spent at that stage is a highly productive investment both for the community and the individuals in whom that investment is made. This hiving-off is quite a significant change. I do not know that the Australian people have come to realise that yet. Who is now looking after the education of children up to the age of three or four?

Ms Paul: I will just set the scene in a machinery-of-government sense. The only time I have ever known childcare to be neither in the health department or the community services department—or in this case the social services department—is in these recent years when it has been with education. There is a history of it being the other way.

Senator O'NEILL: Yes, enlightenment has occurred—and under conservative governments too. Ms Paul: I think everybody agrees that this period from zero to three or four is a very important time. I think

the minister answered the question from the perspective of the government's decision to have a focus on families in social services. This is a government decision which I cannot really comment on. I was not privy to it.

Senator O'NEILL: I can hear that the government has the money side of it covered. What I am asking is: who is looking after the education investment of Australia in children up to the age of four now? Federally, it is not with the department of education, it would seem. Is that correct?

Ms Paul: We are looking after some early education—preschool and the things around preschool. For example, the universal access national partnership is with us.

Senator O'NEILL: What ages is that for? Ms Paul: That is particularly for four-year-olds—access to preschool. There is a broad landscape of people in

Australia who are involved with children from zero to three: whether it is teachers and other educators in childcare centres or state governments and their commitments to preschool. There are a wide range of bodies responsible for supporting the learning of young kids before they get to school.



Senator O'NEILL: But, because of the change of government—and it was very clearly explained to us by Minister Birmingham that it was a decision by the Prime Minister—there is now no national oversight of the education of 0- to 3-year-olds and, predominantly, four-year-olds.

Ms Paul: No, I would not— Senator O'NEILL: Does the department have a role in the education of zero-to-threes anymore? Ms Paul: Certainly we care about the learning of all kids. In terms of formal responsibilities for who does

which program, we have made sure that we are going to continue to sit on the Commonwealth-state liaison forums and so on that deal with all ages before school. That is really important to us for the very reasons that you named. Mr Cook may know of other liaison mechanisms. It is of course important for us keep in touch, and we always do. It is a bit like vocational education now coming back, you might say, into the department of education: naturally, when it was in the department of industry, and before that, under the former government, in innovation, we nonetheless kept up a close connection, as we are committed to do for our former colleagues now with social services.

Senator O'NEILL: But to be clear, at the moment there is no formal oversight or formal allocation of money for the federal education department to have oversight of the education of zero- to three/four-year-olds?

Ms Paul: We are responsible to four-year-olds through the commitment to preschool and, for example, the early languages—

Senator O'NEILL: But there is no formal overview by the department of education? Ms Paul: From zero to three, which you might characterise more as a child care responsibility, is now with

social services. Senator O'NEILL: I do not think teachers would characterise it as a child care responsibility. Ms Paul: Naturally we care about school readiness. While most school readiness, you might say, occurs in a

formal or semiformal sense at age four, anything which touches on early learning we would have an interest in and we will keep up an interest in, but the programmatic separations are clear.

Senator O'NEILL: And is there a budget allocation to enable the department to do that? Ms Paul: That would mainly be the universal access national partnership at the moment. There is no particular

budget for learning from zero to three. The budget is CCB and CCR and associated programs. That is now with social services.

Senator O'NEILL: I need to make a distinction—and I am sure you are aware of this too, madam secretary—between school readiness and early learning and the education of young children. They are very, very different things.

Ms Paul: There were not particular moneys or programs aimed at educating zero-to-threes before, either. The main programs for those ages are, of course, the support to parents through child care benefit and child care rebate.

Senator O'NEILL: We are going to differ on that, because I think there was significant investment in teacher things. But that is not for a debate between you and me today. I think you have answered my question.

Senator Birmingham: Senator O'Neill, we can debate policy aspects on another day, if you like. You cannot take issue with the factual statement that Ms Paul just made, which was in terms of government programs that exist and government funding that exists. Before the machinery of government changes, before that shift, there were not particularly dedicated funded programs relating to educational aspects of that zero-to-three age cohort. In that sense, the department maintains a policy interest and maintains the engagement with the states and others through fora, as Ms Paul has explained and as Mr Cook could elaborate on if you want; but the substance of the changes that occurred with the machinery of government was in relation to the family support around child care, which is going back to how historically it has been more closely administered by the social services portfolio.

Senator O'NEILL: The quality framework is probably worth mentioning there, but anyway, let's move on. I am sure Senator Carr has some more questions.

Senator KIM CARR: Madam secretary, I was referring to the statement by Mr Robert Griew to the AAT outlining the existence of a series of documents within the department concerning higher education HELP debt, impact of deregulation on regional higher education, graduate modelling and documents on the assumptions underpinning the reduction in the Commonwealth government support programs and the deregulation of student fees. So there is a whole series of modelling documents, yet this committee has been advised on numerous



occasions that the department has not undertaken modelling. I am just wondering how you reconcile statements made before the AAT with the statements made to this committee.

Ms Paul: I will say two things. I am advised by our legal advisers that the document which I have now been given, which I have not seen before—

Senator KIM CARR: This is in your name, I see—the secretary; you are the respondent. Ms Paul: Probably. Anyway, what I want to draw to your attention is that I am advised that this matter is

currently before the AAT. There is a practice direction from the AAT relating to the release from an implied undertaking. At 2.3 it says:

Breach of the implied undertaking may constitute a criminal offence under section 63(5) of the AAT Act … Et cetera. I appreciate that we are in the Senate, but I thought I should mention those things.

Senator KIM CARR: You are not questioning parliamentary privilege, are you? Ms Paul: Of course not, but I did want to make the point that usually we do not go to sub judice in issues here.

At 2.2 says: A party that obtains a document provided under compulsion in a proceeding or a person to whom the party gives such a

document must not use the document for any purpose other than that for which it was given unless… Et cetera—unless the tribunal gives leave, basically. It is unusual for us, so I just thought I would mention that. I had not appreciated that it was live when you—

Senator KIM CARR: There was a request made to table a document. I would not normally have bothered,. because the issue is not going to the case itself—

Ms Paul: Sure. I appreciate that. Senator KIM CARR: My issue and, as I say, I would not have tabled the document if it had not been

requested by the government— CHAIR:. Not by the government—by the committee. Senator KIM CARR: It was not by the committee. There was no meeting of the committee. There was no

decision of the committee. Government senators requested the document. Senator Birmingham: I requested the document because you were quoting from it, Senator Carr. Senator KIM CARR: I was actually summarising it, but that is neither here nor there. The question I am

putting to you, Ms Paul, goes to the issue of whether or not this committee has been misled by the department on regular occasions. In answer to 355, for instance, on the question of modelling, there are repeated references to modelling through the Hansard. It is my contention, Ms Paul, that the department has sought to convey the impression that you did not undertake modelling. It would be apparent to me from the statement that Mr Griew has made that extensive modelling has been undertaken. I am wondering how you reconcile the evidence presented to the AAT with the statements made by officers and answers to questions concerning modelling.

Ms Paul: I am happy to give you my own undertaking that I will have a look at this, on notice. I am not quite sure of the status of this document, but nonetheless I will take more broadly on notice, if that may be more appropriate, to review our previous evidence and to correct anything that might need correcting. I am not saying I am thinking it will; I am just saying that I am giving you a genuine undertaking.

Senator KIM CARR: I appreciate that. It may well be that you come back to me and say, 'You've misunderstood my answers.' I can expect that that is what you will say. But I am also putting to you that by any fair reading of your answers an impression was created that modelling had not been done by the department. I think—and I am putting it to you—that that is a serious discrepancy in the evidence that has now been presented to a judicial body, which has not been presented to the parliament when numerous requests have been made for that material. Putting aside the sub judice issue, because I am not going to the case itself—and I was not even aware of the status of the particular—

Ms Paul: Neither was I. Senator KIM CARR: I am only interested in the facts, as presented in this statement by a senior education

officer, which appear to me to be contrary to the statements made repeatedly to parliamentary committees. I am asking: can you explain the difference?

Ms Paul: That is quite a significant issue you are raising there. My undertaking is to give you a personal undertaking that I will review on notice our former evidence. This document has a status that, perhaps, we can leave aside for the moment, but nonetheless I am quite happy to take—



Senator KIM CARR: It has been legitimately tabled. Ms Paul: I will give you my commitment of a personal perusal. Senator KIM CARR: Sure. The document has been legitimately tabled. As far as I am concerned,

parliamentary privilege covers the tabling of the document. That is an entirely separate matter. The fact remains you are obviously aware of this case, and I have now drawn to your attention the statement by a senior officer of the department. I want to draw your attention to a couple of other contract matters. There is contract number CN2855672.

Ms Paul: I am not familiar with it. Do you know— Senator KIM CARR: I know that, but you will have an officer here—the finance officer, presumably—who

will have copies of that. Ms Paul: Can you tell me what the heading is? Senator KIM CARR: Do you want me to go through that again? CN— Senator Birmingham: Is there a title for it at all? Senator KIM CARR: Well, this is part of the problem. Its category is: management support services. The

descriptor is: review policy. Ms Paul: Who is the company? Senator KIM CARR: I presume it is limited tender. Ms Paul: Why don't I take it on notice? Senator KIM CARR: PhillipsKPA. Senator KIM CARR: I am asking you not to take it on notice because the CFO should be able to tell us what

the money has been spent on. It is an AusTender document. Ms Paul: If it is PhillipsKPA, as you and I both know, it is probably to do with higher education. If we cannot

rustle it up here, given that we do not want to waste any of your time, why don't we find out what it was by the time we get to outcome three?

Senator KIM CARR: It is for $12,000. I am just wondering what the policy review is that this contractor is undertaking.

Ms Paul: I do not know off hand, I am sorry. But the higher ed folk can find out for us. Senator KIM CARR: The next one is $174,400 for the evaluation of the 2014 strategic priority projects. It

was an open tender: RMIT; CN2835442. What is that for? Ms Paul: I do not know. Senator KIM CARR: It is an education executive—that is the division. Ms Paul: Executive? That is me and my nearest and dearest colleagues, so I am not sure— Senator KIM CARR: That is a perfectly legitimate cross-portfolio issue then. Ms Paul: Quite right. But I think I am just going to have to take it on notice. Senator KIM CARR: Is the finance officer here? Ms Paul: Yes, but it is a long list. We may just not be able to get to it now. We will see if we can. What does

work well, actually, if you want to think about—and I think I said this last time—you may want to give us some of these in advance. There are so many on AusTender at any given point in time. We have done that in the past.

Ms Monkley: I do not have details of that contract in front of me. Senator KIM CARR: Do you want the number again? Ms Monkley: If you can, please. Senator KIM CARR: CN2835442. Ms Monkley: As Ms Paul has indicated— Ms Paul: Ms Monkley has a table that is very lengthy. I think we should probably take it on notice. I do not

even know which program it is for—whether it is higher ed or schools, or something for the department itself. Senator KIM CARR: This is for the education executive. Ms Paul: That is just to me. It might even be for the department itself, but I do not know.



Senator KIM CARR: There is another one for the education executive: impact analysis report for the education services overseas; $57,478; CN2797872. What is a that one for?

Ms Paul: I do not know. But we would definitely be able to answer that in outcome three, because that, obviously, is international ed. I do not know what it was for.

Senator KIM CARR: It is education executive. Ms Paul: Yes. I do not know why it is saying education executive. We will answer that, too. But it is clearly

out of international ed by the title. Senator KIM CARR: I presume this is the 'research, benchmark, test, evaluate higher education

communication': $330,000. Is that one we referred to earlier? Ms Paul: Yes, it is. Senator KIM CARR: Taylor Nelson? Ms Paul: That sounds like it is the evaluation. Yes, we would have mentioned it. I think we mentioned Taylor

Nelson, so I will just confirm that. But it sounds like it is the evaluation study. Senator RHIANNON: Did you use any other metrics to determine the reach of your advertising campaign,

and could you outline what measurement standards you used? Did it include emails received about the issue? Was it the number of visits to the website or specific parts of the website. I am interested in what metrics you used post the campaign.

Ms Paul: Post the campaign? Senator RHIANNON: During the campaign or post the campaign. Ms Paul: I think we have answered that a couple of times—which is that it goes to the formal evaluation. Senator RHIANNON: I have been out of the room a couple of times and may have missed it—it is the

specific metrics. Ms Paul: How many hits were there and that sort of thing? Senator RHIANNON: Before we get to that, what did you actually use? Was it the number of emails you

received, the number of visits to the website or to a specific part of the website? What measurement standards have you used?

Ms Paul: I think we may have taken this on notice, but I am not sure. We would track how many hits there have been to the website. We mentioned how many calls. We certainly do track contacts once a campaign has begun. We can take that on notice for you.

Senator RHIANNON: The question was—and I would expect that you would have this, because I understand you would have to sign off on it—what are the different measurement standards? I appreciate that you are taking on notice the matter of finding the quantitative data for those measurement standards, but I am trying to understand what the measurement standards are.

Ms Paul: Sorry, I do not understand the question. Senator RHIANNON: What measurements you take to determine the reach of your advertising campaign? Ms Paul: I see. Senator RHIANNON: That was my original question. Ms Paul: So, in other words, more or less how many people it has reached. Senator RHIANNON: No, it is actually the measurement standard. That is why I gave you the example of the

number of emails you have received and the number of hits for your website. Are they some of the metrics? Ms Paul: Yes. Senator RHIANNON: Are there other metrics? Ms Paul: There would be a range of metrics. I am quite happy to take on notice the full run of this

conversation and look at what we have been measuring and what the relevant benchmarks might be. I may be misunderstanding you a bit. But, anyway, it strikes me that there are probably two components. One is: what is the level of activity? Which is what I was talking about a minute ago. Secondly, what sort of things will an evaluator—because that is outsourced—look for. I think you were also asking if there are certain benchmarks. Did you mean industry benchmarks, or—

Senator RHIANNON: No. I understand that you are taking the quantitative data on notice. Ms Paul: Yes.



Senator RHIANNON: So we have agreed to that. I would understand that you would have to sign off on what is being evaluated so you get that quantitative data. Going through some examples, are you requesting that records are kept of the number of email inquiries about this issue, following the advertising campaign? Is that one of your metrics?

Ms Paul: Okay. I am not sure about email. Certainly we know how many hits et cetera but I am not sure about email. Let me take that on notice. Now I understand what you are getting at.

Senator RHIANNON: Again, I would have thought that you would have to sign off on how it is going to be evaluated. Do you sign off on that?

Ms Paul: Not necessarily. My formal sign off is quite particular. That goes to the content of the paid campaign. So that comes earlier. It would not have necessarily been me who said 'Let's track emails et cetera,' but I am sure it is being done, and I am happy to take it on notice.

Senator RHIANNON: But, again, the question was about the form that the evaluation takes. So you do not sign off on, 'The evaluation will take this form and these are the metrics we are going to track and report back to you and the minister'?

Ms Paul: I personally have not signed off on the contract with the evaluator, but someone will have, and I can find out who that was. They will, when we contracted with an evaluator, have specified what is required to be evaluated. So, I am quite happy to take that on notice for you. I hope that gets a bit closer to it.

Senator RHIANNON: When did the evaluation of the campaign start? In relation to the advertising, it starts and the public starts seeing it. How long after that do you start your evaluation?

Ms Paul: I think Ms Gleeson answered that, and she can answer it again, if you like. But I think she answered it to you, and that was that it has been in two stages. There is an evaluation that is an outsourced evaluation which is being undertaken now and has not finished. I think either Ms Gleeson had the date that that started or took it on notice. Then Ms Gleeson said there was a top-line evaluation, which does not go into as much detail. But she has actually put on record twice now what the findings were. I am happy to do it again, if you like. Do you want us to go through again what those dates are and so on?

Senator RHIANNON: I must have missed it. So, you spelt out the two. I can go back and look at Hansard. Ms Paul: Yes, we did. Senator RHIANNON: While Ms Gleeson is at the table, just to clarify, you did cover this somewhat this

morning. But I just did want to double-check: it is before the advertising campaign starts that you do your research. What form does that research take? Is it focus groups?

Ms Paul: The market research undertaken for this campaign is exactly the same as for any campaign, and, yes, it usually will include focus groups and so on. I am sure Ms Gleeson can expand on that if possible.

Senator RHIANNON: With the focus groups, can you quantify how many, where and the number? Ms Paul: We are going to do that. We took it on notice for Senator Carr. Senator RHIANNON: What other forms did the research take? Did it include online surveys? Ms Gleeson: Correct, and for the benchmarking tracking and evaluation research it will be and has been a mix

of online and telephone surveys used to conduct that research. The focus groups were in relation to the developmental research and also in terms of the concept and refinement test and research.

Senator RHIANNON: Did I understand correctly that there are four focus groups, an online survey and a phone survey?

Ms Gleeson: There are four different types of research that have been undertaken or are underway to inform and evaluate the 2014-15 Higher Education Communication Campaign.

Senator RHIANNON: You said 'underway'. What was done prior to the campaign starting and what was done once the campaign started?

Ms Paul: I think we have taken on notice to say how many focus groups and where, but if there were things other than focus groups, Ms Gleeson can go to that.

Senator RHIANNON: You said 'four'. Can you just— Ms Gleeson: I said the four areas of research are developmental research— Senator RHIANNON: What would the lay person call that? Ms Gleeson: That was the research that was conducted prior to any of the campaign being developed or

considered. So that was the initial—



Senator RHIANNON: So, when you say 'developmental research', does that mean focus groups? Ms Gleeson: That was part of it— Senator RHIANNON: And what else? Ms Gleeson: And there was also an online survey. Senator RHIANNON: And you mentioned phone surveys. Were there phone surveys as well? Ms Gleeson: I am just having a look to make sure I reflect the correct methodology. Ms Paul: Do you want us to take it on notice. Senator RHIANNON: No, because it leads on to my next question. Ms Paul: We will keep going. Senator RHIANNON: It sounds like it is there because it was mentioned that there were four, so I am

assuming that it must be in the paper somewhere. Senator Birmingham: I would have thought it possible that the officers from outcome 3 would have a greater

familiarity with some of this information. Ms Paul: We are also talking about two different things. We have been talking about—quite rightly, because

you have asked about two—the market research done before the campaign was developed and the evaluation research done after.

Senator RHIANNON: But I am trying to work through it very systematically, to be fair. So, to repeat the question—

Ms Gleeson: The methodology for the developmental research was a mix of focus groups and an online questionnaire.

Senator RHIANNON: For the focus groups, you understand you will give us the quantitative data there. Ms Gleeson: Correct. Senator RHIANNON: For the online survey, can you provide the quantitative data? Ms Gleeson: We will do that. We can take that on notice. Senator RHIANNON: You have or you will? Ms Gleeson: We can take that on notice. Senator RHIANNON: Good. Can you supply the questions that were asked; what reach you expected to get,

that you were told you would get by the company; what the company was— Ms Paul: It was ORIMA Research. Senator RHIANNON: thank you—who the company was; and what the response was. Ms Paul: Sure. Yes, we can take that on notice. Senator RHIANNON: Okay. So, beforehand, the development work is focus groups and an online survey.

The advertising campaign starts— Ms Gleeson: No, prior to the campaign commencing, there was also refinement and concept testing

conducted. Senator RHIANNON: Prior to the campaign starting. What form did that take? Ms Gleeson: That informed creative concepts and campaign messaging, and the form that took was focus

groups. Senator RHIANNON: Focus groups. Anything else? Ms Gleeson: No, just focus groups. Senator RHIANNON: Again, could you take on notice, please, to provide the number of focus groups; the

number of people who attended the focus groups; where they were held; who the company was; what your expectation was, what you were told attendance would be; and how many did attend.

Ms Gleeson: Of course. Senator RHIANNON: Okay. That was creative concepts. Thank you for that one; I had missed that. So now

we are up to the advertising. How do you evaluate that? What form did the evaluation take? Ms Gleeson: There are three different types of research that are conducted in terms of the implementation of a

campaign. It is referred to and known as benchmarking, tracking and evaluation research.



Senator RHIANNON: Can you spell those out? You can see what I am getting at. I am happy to spell the questions out, but I am just trying to understand.

Ms Gleeson: There are three parts to the research in terms of the implementation of the campaign. Prior to the commencement of the campaign, the expert company that we contracted benchmarks levels of awareness relative to the campaign objectives; in the course of the actual campaign being implemented, the company tracks results or tests how audiences are reacting to, interpreting, the materials that are being implemented as part of the campaign; and then both of those first two parts of the research are rolled into the evaluation research, where further analysis is done in terms of testing audiences, particularly the target audiences for the campaign, about levels of awareness and so on.

Senator RHIANNON: So, in the evaluation, we have benchmarking and tracking. What form do they take? Is it focus groups, online surveys? Are any of the people the same people you may have been using in the creative concept stage? Again, I am trying to understand the form that that benchmarking takes.

Ms Gleeson: There was a mix of online and telephone surveys used as this part of the research—the benchmarking, tracking and evaluation research. It is a different company undertaking this research to that which undertook the developmental research and the concept and refinement research.

Senator RHIANNON: So the same company does the benchmarking and tracking? Ms Gleeson: Correct. Senator RHIANNON: They do not do any focus groups? Ms Gleeson: Not that I have got here in front of me. Senator RHIANNON: They rely on online and phone surveys? Ms Gleeson: Correct. Senator RHIANNON: Can you take it on notice? If you had the figures, it would be wonderful. Ms Gleeson: Yes, definitely. Senator RHIANNON: If you had the figures now is what I meant. Ms Gleeson: I would prefer to take that on notice. Senator RHIANNON: Okay. Again, the questions there, for both sections, are: how many people were

involved in the surveys; what was the reach of the surveys; how many people did the company commit to undertaking research with; and how many actually responded to the online and phone surveys?

Ms Gleeson: Will do. Senator RHIANNON: That is benchmarking. Tracking: is it just online and phone surveys again? Ms Gleeson: Correct. When I referred to benchmarking, tracking and research in terms of describing the mix

of online and telephone surveys, that is the methodology used across all three of those areas of research. Senator RHIANNON: I heard two different things. I imagine that was me mishearing it. I thought at one

point you said the benchmarking and tracking were what informed the evaluation. Ms Gleeson: That is right. It is all part of— Senator RHIANNON: I appreciate that. So the evaluation does not have separate—I just have to get these

questions on notice down. I come from New South Wales, and, if you did not pin the questions down, it was a great way of avoiding taking questions on notice!

Ms Gleeson: Sure. Senator RHIANNON: So, is the evaluation informed by the benchmark and tracking online and phone

surveys, or does it have its own separate online and phone surveys? Ms Gleeson: It has its own separate— Senator RHIANNON: Okay, great. Ms Gleeson: The research company approaches different members of the public, being representative of target

audience and members of the general public. So they reach out to different groups of people through the methodology of online and telephone surveys for each of those three parts of that final part of the research.

Senator RHIANNON: So for each of those three sections you are taking on notice the quantitative data for the online surveys and phone surveys?

Ms Gleeson: Correct.



Senator RHIANNON: And did I understand that you just said that they have a way of ensuring different people are involved? So we have six things there: three lots of online surveys and three phone survey, right?

Ms Gleeson: Correct. Senator RHIANNON: Do they ensure that different people are involved in each one of those? Ms Gleeson: That is my understanding. It is one of the reasons why we contract these kinds of companies

through the Department of Finance's multi-use list for communication companies, because they have met certain criterion and thresholds in knowing their business in terms of research work.

Senator RHIANNON: So when you say 'it is my understanding' do you need to take that on notice and determine that that is the case?

Ms Gleeson: I am happy to take that on notice and provide a written response. Senator RHIANNON: Thank you. Now you have just made reference to other campaigns where similar work

is done. CHAIR: Such as the Gonski campaign. Senator RHIANNON: Is the level of this research—both the developmental research and then this evaluation

research—similar to what other campaigns engage in? Ms Gleeson: It is. Senator RHIANNON: So within a ball park of 10 per cent? Ms Paul: I do not know how we could measure that. There are different— Senator RHIANNON: I know. I am not asking you to take it on notice but I am asking you to give a fair

answer. Ms Paul: Sure. As I said before, campaigns are very different in terms of their size. The schools one was 21

million under the former government et cetera. But, basically, they always follow the same processes—at least in my experience, although Ms Gleeson may be more experienced! And those are the processes that have been described by Ms Gleeson. She quite rightly mentioned the multi-use panel that the Department of Finance holds. That is actually where we have drawn from—kind of forever, as far as I know, relatively speaking—for all these types of companies for any campaign over the years. It is really the same—it is a normal process, basically.

Senator RHIANNON: Thank you for that. I think you did say it earlier but I did want to check the date—I could not find it in my notes—the advertising campaign has ended?

Ms Gleeson: Correct. Senator RHIANNON: What was the date please? Ms Gleeson: It was 14 February. Senator RHIANNON: Is the evaluation ongoing? Ms Gleeson: It is currently underway. Senator RHIANNON: So is it that the tracking and the benchmarking are still being done with the online

surveys and phone surveys? Or are they writing it up? What stage are they at? Ms Gleeson: My understanding with the online telephone surveys—because it has not been very long since

the campaign was completed—is that the evaluation part of the final part of research is underway. Senator RHIANNON: And when will the online surveys and the phone surveys finish? And when will the

report be handed to you? Ms Gleeson: I will have to take that on notice. Ms Paul: It is probably up to the company. Senator RHIANNON: Up the company—but surely you give them a date when you want the report by? Ms Paul: We may have—let us take that on notice. Senator RHIANNON: But isn't that what you would sign off on? Ms Paul: As I said, I do not think I have signed off on this. But, yes, we probably have signed off on a report

date, I should imagine. We will get that for you. Unless you have it now? Ms Gleeson: I do not. Ms Paul: Okay. Ms Gleeson: It is a matter of weeks. It will depend on the analytics and the analysis to be undertaken.



Senator RHIANNON: And again, I thought you would at least be able to give us an approximation, because you have said how the form this has taken is similar to what has happened before. So, if that is the case, you surely would know how long before you get your—

Senator Birmingham: As Lisa just said, it is probably a matter of weeks. Senator RHIANNON: Yes, but I had to draw that out— Senator Birmingham: Well you have it now, Senator Rhiannon, so let's move on. Senator RHIANNON: I thought we might be able to get some details. Ms Paul: We did earlier give you the top line results from the previous top line evaluation, I think. If you

want them again we can give them to you again. Senator RHIANNON: All is good. Senator RUSTON: Could I just seek a couple of points of clarity? CHAIR: Certainly, Senator Ruston. Senator RUSTON: Earlier this morning Senator Carr was questioning you about the details of the campaign

in relation to providing information to the public on the higher education reforms. Did you say that, as part of the money that was used in relation to the website call centre, $500,000 was applied to that area? Can you just explain to me what that $500,000 was actually used for—the broader things that were involved in it?

Ms Paul: We actually have not used it particularly. That was the amount budgeted for website development but, as it happens, we have been able to do the website development in-house or at least through the shared services centre from which we purchase corporate services in many areas so that budgeted amount will not end up being used fully. I think we said that a small amount might have been, but basically we have been able to do it more cost-efficiently by doing it in-house, which is normal for any website that is developed.

Senator O'NEILL: I think you took on notice to find the cost centre against which that was happening in terms of in-house expenditure—

Senator RUSTON: At no time was there ever any suggestion that the entire $500,000 was spent against the call centre?

Ms Paul: No, not at all. In fact, I think we were absolutely clear that the $500,000 was the budgeted amount but in fact we have not needed to use it. We have already identified that there is already around $5 million unspent from the $14 million approved for the overall campaign.

Senator RUSTON: So if a senator in this hearing chose to go out at morning tea time and issue a press release along the lines of 'Government's $500,000 higher education call centre a flop' that states: Commenting on revelations today that the Federal Department of Education budgeted $500,000 for a higher education information hotline that received only 135 calls … this equates to $3700 per phone call received. That would be a misleading statement to put out into the public.

Ms Paul: Yes. I have not seen it, but that is not true,, because we have not spent it. You certainly cannot make an equation like that. The money just has not been spent. We said we have been using a call centre that has always been there for higher ed and we had quite a long piece of evidence saying that the payment would be on the basis of volume. If the volume is below the budgeted amount, the payment would be well below. There is absolutely no way that we have spent $500,000. That is just what was allowed for.

Senator RUSTON: Perhaps I need to ask that senator to retract the press release that was released at morning tea time.

Senator O'NEILL: Can I ask a follow-up question in light of the senator's comments there? CHAIR: Sorry, Senator O'Sullivan actually got the call first. Senator O'SULLIVAN: My question is again in the macro context of the advertising. Do you believe that the

decision-making process of potential students from 2014—those who may have been considering pursuing higher education at universities—was affected by the campaign? Did potential university applicants make a decision not to pursue that because of fear or whatever may have influenced them in their decision-making process?

Ms Paul: What we know so far is what Ms Gleeson set out before, which is the top-line results from the first evaluation of I think the first round. If you want to go to them again, they did find some positive change in people's understandings. Ms Gleeson read that out before.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: Do you have any figures? I am sorry I was not here. Ms Paul: That is fine. We will just go through the top-line results, for your information.



Ms Gleeson: Preliminary indicative results of research show: some decreases in the prevalence of myths and misconceptions about the higher education system; slight increases in awareness of the reforms; campaign activity appears to be positively correlated to a correction in audiences' misconceptions of the reforms; an increased awareness of government support for higher education and the mechanisms that will remain in place into the future; and some increases in perceptions that the reforms will be beneficial to Australia.

Senator Birmingham: Senator O'Sullivan, certainly a couple of those elements—improvements in terms of a reduction in misconceptions and in people's understanding that there would be potential for fee deferral through the income contingent loan type scheme we have—are very important outcomes. They, we trust, would have helped people who may have been under a misunderstanding late last year, or during the course of last year, that, in fact, they could apply and could accept a place at university this year—and, indeed, into the future, should the government's reform package be passed—without facing any up-front fees.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: That probably plays to a part of my question. I think that fair-minded Australians found the scare campaign—political or otherwise—to be very irresponsible. So I could perhaps put the question more pointedly—and we may not have any quantitative evidence of this. Would it be fair to say that some young Australians did go ahead and engage in applying to go to higher education as a result of fears that they may have developed during the scare campaign, which has allowed them to go on and take the opportunity?

Senator Birmingham: Again, for consistency in the way we have handled these things, if we want to get into details around university applications and acceptances, we should probably do that in outcome 3, but, in a general sense, I am pleased to say that university applications and university acceptances have held up. The scare campaign waged by the Labor Party, the Greens, the NTEU, GetUp! and a whole range of others has not worked.

Senator O'NEILL: A point of order, Chair. The minister's comments are highly political— CHAIR: Sorry, Senator O'Neill, there is no point of order— Senator Birmingham: Welcome to parliament, Senator O'Neill! Senator O'NEILL: Yes, there are scare tactics, and $100,000 degrees are a reality. CHAIR: especially after this morning's shenanigans by your own colleagues. Please do not continue to put on

the record your innumerate response to the higher education reforms. Minister. Senator Birmingham: Thank you. As I was saying to Senator O'Sullivan, thankfully, that scare campaign

waged by Mr Shorten and others implying that there would be some up-front fees that students would face appears not to have succeeded. Pleasingly, the research that Ms Gleeson has referred to in relation to the government's campaign appears to demonstrate that that helped to allay concerns and, hopefully, helped the students—

Senator O'NEILL: It is a pity the legislation did not allay concerns. Senator Birmingham: and their families in making sensible decisions. Senator O'Neill, I do not interrupt you;

I would appreciate it if you did not interrupt me. Senator O'NEILL: That is not true, Senator. That is not true. CHAIR: Please put your comments through the chair, Senator O'Neill and Minister. Senator Birmingham: Thank you. I was going to invite Senator Rhiannon to respond to Senator Ruston

before and correct the record around her misleading media release, but I see she has— Senator RUSTON: She is just outside the room, Senator, so I am sure she will be back shortly. CHAIR: Are there any further questions? Senator O'NEILL: Yes. Senator Ruston was conflating a couple of different items in her commentary there

about the website development of $1.3 million—and some questions around that—and the contact centre support. I want to make sure that it is really clear. The contact centre support allocation of funding was $500,000, which must have been determined by some research. To allocate $2.3 million to creative development, I am sure, would have come from some decision making that was undertaken. Allocating $500,000 for contact centre support for all these students who you claim were incredibly anxious as a result of the campaign that has been waged resulted in a mere 134 interactions. How could it be that the research commissioned at a cost of $800,000—and undertaken over quite a long period of time, which you indicated to us earlier—led the department to seek an allocation of half a million dollars for a call centre that has generated a call response of 136 calls? Clearly, that is pretty bad planning by the government and a complete misreading of the level of alarm out in the community with only 136 calls to a nationally established call centre on the higher ed reform.



Ms Paul: I would take issue with how you have described that, obviously. We would have put aside, out of the amount allocated for the total campaign, the absolute upper limit of what we thought might happen. For the call centre and the website—as I have described before this morning at some length—we would have budgeted on the basis that we might have had to have outsourced support et cetera. In the end, we have actually used pre-existing services. We have only talked about the numbers of calls, but we do have, of course, metrics on the numbers of people that have been to the website et cetera. The calls have been the smallest part, which is interesting. Clearly, prospective students—not surprisingly—are so web enabled that those are the largest parts. We were delighted that, in the end, we did not have to spend that $500,000, or indeed the $1.3 million set aside for the website development, because we were able to do all of that in-house or through our existing arrangement with the shared services centre.

Senator Birmingham: In addition to the prudent budgeting that Ms Paul has described, if the content of the campaign and the content of the creative elements of the campaign that was developed is clear and allays people's concerns, then there is no need for them to pick the phone up. So I am very pleased there has been a positive change in public impressions, as Ms Gleeson has outlined, and, clearly, that has ensured—

Senator O'NEILL: Thank you, Senator. Senator Birmingham: Senator O'Neill, I am grateful for you thanks, but perhaps not giving it to me mid-

sentence would be appreciated. Senator O'NEILL: The sentences might help— CHAIR: Senator O'Neill, please let the minister complete his answer. Senator Birmingham: Senator O'Neill, I think it is a testament to the success of the campaign that we have

that positive feedback that public perceptions have changed and, indeed, that people's concerns were allayed as a result of seeing the campaign material, looking at the information on the internet and looking at other pieces of information related to the campaign without needing to make phone calls. It is good news that the costs fully budgeted for have not needed to be utilised.

Ms Paul: Just to be clear, the campaign, which I certified, particularly drew people towards the website. In a short campaign of two weeks and two weeks, I think, over summer, we have had hundreds and hundreds of thousands of views on the website. We have had almost 4 million people reached through Facebook—the campaign has; I should not say 'we'—and so on. There are two things that we are talking about now: what were the main media that reached people—the campaign led people towards a website, and, not surprisingly, prospective students are going to go towards Facebook et cetera as well and probably less towards calls. The second point we are making is that, even though we had budgeted certain amounts for calls and a website, we were able to support that in-house. And, at any rate, for the calls, we would only pay for what was used. It is not as if there was any inefficiency with taxpayers' money in that regard. We would only pay these people when they were actually used.

Senator Birmingham: Before Senator Rhiannon leaves the room— Senator O'NEILL: She has gone. Senator Birmingham: Senator Rhiannon, you might like to step back in for this, because I am advised that

the expenditure to date for the call centre is $6,179. So, Senator Rhiannon, I look forward to you putting out a new press release correcting the record in relation the claims you have made.

Senator RHIANNON: Thank you, Chair, could— CHAIR: Senator O'Neill, have you finished your questions? Sorry, they are in the middle of an exchange. Senator RHIANNON: Yes, when it is finished. Senator O'NEILL: I just wanted to indicate that I think that most people managing their budget would find it

very alarming that the minister considered it prudent to overestimate the cost of that contact centre by the proportion that he has—

Senator Birmingham: This is the problem with the Labor Party's approach to budgeting, Senator O'Neill. You always like to underestimate the cost and then have budget blow-out.

Senator O'NEILL: It is a significant— Senator Birmingham: We prefer to overestimate the cost and come in under. CHAIR: Minister, that is not helpful. Senator O'NEILL: It is still completely— Senator Birmingham: That is how the country got into so much debt in the first place.



Senator O'NEILL: The next time the senator interrupts me, I will remind him of that little interjection. There is an incredible gap, and I think that it feeds into the sense that the government is not properly informed about many, many elements of its policy.

CHAIR: Commentary is finished. Senator Rhiannon, I think you have a question. Senator RHIANNON: Minister, would you be willing to correct the incorrect statement that you have just

given, considering that our comment in the media release on the figures that were given earlier said 'if that half million dollars was what was spent and the result was 135 calls'. It was quite clear. There was no inaccuracy there at all, so could you correct the record?

Senator Birmingham: If it sounds like a dog whistle, if it looks like a dog whistle, it probably is a dog whistle. That is what you are engaging in. You indeed did your extrapolation there to $3,700 per phone call. Of course, it turns out that not even twice that amount has been expended in total.

Senator RHIANNON: Would it be more useful for the public for you to actually provide much more detail, because at the moment we are not—

Senator Birmingham: We just did. Perhaps you should not be in such undue haste to rush your press releases out.

Senator RHIANNON: The most you have come forward with this morning is 135 calls. Surely that is embarrassing for you that that is—

Senator Birmingham: No, that is great news. Senator RHIANNON: A hundred and thirty-five across this whole country with more than one million

students to go to our universities, and you get 135 calls and are proud of it? Senator Birmingham: The campaign material has been so successful that students were able to get their

answers from the internet, from the ads that were run or from the campaign literature. Senator RHIANNON: Can you back that up with details? Ms Paul: Yes, we just did. I think you were out of the room though. The campaign leads people towards the

website, as you probably know. So far in what is a short campaign there have been hundreds of thousands of page views. There have been almost four million people reached through Facebook and so on. So it is not a surprise that, given the audience of prospective students we are talking about, calls would be the least amount. We were clear in evidence this morning, I would say. We were talking about budgeted figures. We were not talking about expended figures. We did mention some committed figures, so it is not even spent yet but committed. The committed figure for the contact centre to date is $6,179.

Senator RUSTON: I would like to draw the attention of the committee and the room to the headline of the press release that says 'Government's $500,000 higher education call centre a flop'. I do not see the word 'if' used anywhere in that headline.

Senator RHIANNON: It is really excellent to have a media release read out, so thank you very much. Senator Birmingham: Even if it is completely inaccurate. Senator RHIANNON: No, it is not completely inaccurate, and you still have not proved that. There was that

if there, and we have been able to push you on data. It is now a quarter past 12. We started at nine, and you have been so short on data. Ms Paul, with regard to the $4 million—

Senator Birmingham: Please. In all of these hearings there are often detailed figures that have to be sought on notice. We have managed to turn this one around relatively quickly. I am pleased about that because it has highlighted the fact that you, rather than waiting to get the facts, jumped to conclusions, and those conclusions have been seen to be inaccurate.

Ms Paul: To clarify the evidence to date: we were clear that these were budgeted figures. We were also clear that they had not been committed or spent. We were clear that there was at least $5 million uncommitted at the moment and we were clear that, while we had allowed for a contact centre and website to be outsourced, we actually did those things in house.

Senator Birmingham: To be clear: the success of this campaign is judged not on the number of phone calls received from people who still have doubts. The success is judged on whether or not misconceptions in the public have been corrected and particularly were corrected during the crucial period of people making application for or considering offers of university places. I am very pleased that the evidence demonstrates that there was an improvement in those understandings by students and their families, and I trust that had a positive impact on the acceptances of university places this year.



Senator O'NEILL: Have you done any research into the impact of legislation being defeated in providing some—

CHAIR: Let the minister finish, please. Senator O'SULLIVAN: It is quite rude. Senator RHIANNON: Minister, you have just said the success is judged on whether misconceptions have

been corrected. I apologise that I was out of the room when the figures weer given. We have just had a figure given here of 4 million with regard to Facebook?

Ms Paul: That is just the figure to date on people reached through Facebook, which is 3,800,000. Senator RHIANNON: When you say 'reached', we know there are Facebook likes and such. I assume you

would have a breakdown of that 3.8 million with regard to how far people went into it. Ms Paul: I am not sure how these metrics are done, so we can take them on notice for you. Senator O'NEILL: And time on site. Ms Paul: We will take that on notice. Senator RHIANNON: I go back to the minister's comment. He said that success is judged as misconceptions

having been corrected, but you are talking about data being given inaccurately. We have just had this extraordinary figure of $4 million reached on Facebook.

Senator Birmingham: No, four million page views or people reached or whatever the figure was. Senator RHIANNON: Precisely. That is misleading. Senator Birmingham: What is misleading about it? Senator RHIANNON: You know how Facebook works. It is an incredibly valuable tool, but you can throw

these figures around as though all these people have suddenly been corrected on their views about higher education, but it does not mean that at all.

Senator Birmingham: Indeed, the figure that Ms Paul made simply goes to one aspect of the reach of the campaign, and that is what Ms Paul is talking about. When I was talking about the correction of misconceptions, I was referring to the evidence that Ms Gleeson had given and has given, I think, two, three or four times now to the committee about the headline results of the market evaluation of the campaign that have demonstrated a reduction in misunderstandings and misconceptions amongst the key target audience about the nature of the government's higher education reforms. Leading amongst those misunderstandings and misconceptions from all of the conversations I have had with people is a concern that there will be, for example, up-front fees. It is very important that we put that to bed and make it crystal clear to everybody that the HECS system as it stands continues into the future, that the arrangements that students have come to accept from before my time at university as being the norm—that you incur a debt and you pay it off when you reach a certain income level—

Senator O'Neill interjecting— CHAIR: Senator O'Neill, you have been warned before about inaccurate statements. Senator Birmingham: is exactly what will occur into the future. Senator RHIANNON: Has any of the research that has been undertaken assessed people's attitude to the

possibility that fees could be over $100,000? Young women often want to be vets and are very enthusiastic about that. That could cost over $200,000. Does any of your data examine those important questions?

Ms Paul: What we have taken on notice is to provide information on the market research. We said earlier today that the market research found the same thing in broad that our people found when they went to university open days in the middle of the year last year: prospective students and others to a significant extent were under a misapprehension that HECS-HELP would be abolished and that they would have to pay their fees up front.

Senator RHIANNON: The question was quite specific, so I will ask it again. If you want to answer it, Minister, I will not dispute, but it has not been answered. The question was: did your research assess the attitude of people that fees could be over $100,000—for example, that vet science could cost around $200,000? You surely must know that.

Ms Paul: We do not agree with that analysis, so it is not really a question— Senator RHIANNON: So you are disputing that vet fees could be around $200,000. Ms Paul: We have been through this discussion before, but at any rate that will be a discussion for outcome 3.

If you want to discuss it more, I suggest you do it at outcome 3. Senator O'Neill interjecting—



Senator O'SULLIVAN: Point of order. These continued interjections by Senator O'Neill do not just disrespect her coalition colleague Senator Rhiannon—

Senator O'Neill: I was talking to the chair. Senator O'SULLIVAN: but they disrupt these processes about these important education engagements that I

am interested in hearing. Senator O'NEILL: I am interested in access to education— CHAIR: Senator O'Neill, it really does not help your case if you are interjecting on the point of order about

your interjections. Senator O'SULLIVAN: I just ask the chair to reinforce the standing orders to the senator so that we can have

respectful proceedings here. CHAIR: All senators are reminded that interjections are disorderly. Senator Rhiannon. Senator Birmingham: I think I was responding to Senator Rhiannon, Chair. Ms Paul has addressed the

specifics of your question, Senator Rhiannon, and undertaken to get further information where that is available. You did earlier today, when I made a claim about the misuse of Mr Norton's information by the Greens and his statements in that regard, invite me to quote Mr Norton, so I am accepting your invitation. On 5 June last year, Mr Norton posted a clarifier on his website under the headline 'How realistic is the Greens' university cost website?' Mr Norton says in that: For their website the Greens are using data I provided to various newspapers a few weeks ago, but without the caveats I attached to it. He goes on to say: … the fee numbers in the Greens’ website are almost certainly higher than the average student will be paying in the future, and definitely much higher than the best-priced courses that will be available.

Senator O'NEILL: If we could have access to the modelling, we would actually be able to make a decision about the truth of that claim.

CHAIR: Senator O'Neill. Senator O'NEILL: We cannot get the modelling. We have asked for it on a number of occasions. CHAIR: Senator O'Neill, we are still on our first agenda item. We are about to break for lunch, and I would

appreciate all senators trying to facilitate a speedy end to the first agenda item. Senator Birmingham: I go on quoting Mr Norton:

The campaigns being run by the Greens, the NTEU and NUS are likely to leave many people believing that higher education will be much more expensive than it really is. Senator Rhiannon, I note your Greens website, authorised by you, continues to exist and continues to put these unknown estimates on the—

Senator RHIANNON: Continues to be helpful given the failure of the government to provide the information.

Senator Birmingham: There are two points I would make in relation to your website. The first is that where we have seen actual fees, from the likes of QUT and UWA, it shows those fees will be far lower than what your scare campaign has suggested.

Senator O'NEILL: That is incorrect. Senator RHIANNON: That is totally incorrect. Senator Birmingham: Furthermore, if I can quote from your website, if somebody goes through it and puts in

what they are thinking of studying, what their age is, what their postcode is—I am not sure why that is relevant, but anyway—and all of the data that you ask for, it spits out information which includes statements like: The other big change … the government will now charge real interest rates on your debt. I am sure that, if our information were so out of date and inaccurate, you would be challenging us to correct it. I trust that, in addition to correcting your inaccurate media release you issued earlier today, you might get your staff onto updating your inaccurate website, which regardless of whether the figures it spits out have any validity to them or not—and I do not believe they do—is also making completely incorrect statements in relation to the new package that is before the parliament.

Senator RHIANNON: Thank you, Minister. Considering that you have made very strong statements there, can you provide actual figures to show where it is incorrect, because you yourself just acknowledged that Mr



Norton said that he was almost certain. So we still have not been given the examples to show where the figures are wrong.

Ms Paul: On the website—on your website? Senator RHIANNON: Yes, and also with regard to disputing where the veterinary society are incorrect with

their assessment of what fees— Ms Paul: We did actually give evidence which pointed out some flaws on the Greens' website in the budget

estimates last year. It went to assumptions about cluster funding proceeding in a certain way into universities. I think it went to current prices et cetera. But I do not have the people here at the moment who did that analysis. We do have that in evidence from them, and we can talk about it more at outcome 3, but it is as the minister says. But we also did our own analysis and found several, which I think we actually offered to share at the time—I would have to check—because we felt there were some statistical flaws in—

Senator RHIANNON: But wouldn't the way to correct this be for the department to provide, with encouragement from the minister and/or the advertising campaign, what the fees are likely to be? You still have not done that.

Ms Paul: The model? Senator RHIANNON: Yes, the model. Why haven't you provided your models. Senator O'NEILL: We just cannot get it. Senator Birmingham: Senator Rhiannon, of course you know well that that is because we do not want to be

leading the market in setting prices. Indeed, the whole point of these reforms is, in part, to have a competitive tension around those prices. But if you want one example of how the construction of fees by you on the website authorised by you is inaccurate, I will again quote Mr Norton, as I quoted before: … Greens are using data I provided to various newspapers a few weeks ago but without the caveats I attached to it. A further quote that I did not give before is: To reality check some of the wilder speculation at the time about $100,000 degrees, I used international student fees. Now, Senator Rhiannon, that is what I understand the data on your website is based on: Mr Norton's figures which were utilising international student fees. It is important, though, to recognise that the legislative package before the parliament that has passed the House of Representatives today guarantees that domestic fees must be lower than international fees, minus the level of Commonwealth subsidy. So that means that using international fees is an inaccurate starting point, if that is what you were doing. Now, I—

Senator RHIANNON: But— Senator Birmingham: Now, obviously, I do not know, because all you do on this website is to ask what you

are studying, where you live and how old you are. Then it spits out a figure—with no background as to what basis you have calculated that figure on—that this will bump up your graduation debt to an estimated $63,000 if you happen to be age 18 and studying business. But Mr Norton certainly believes that you have based this on figures that clearly would not be consistent with the outcomes guaranteed by the government's legislative reforms.

Senator RHIANNON: But surely you have just exposed one of the major flaws in your own argument when you have raised this issue of international fees? There is no guarantee where international fees could be. International fees are going up and therefore that bar goes up. You have actually highlighted that it could well be $100,000, even from your own argument.

Senator Birmingham: The international student market is a highly competitive market. Senator RHIANNON: Yes, and you know where it is heading at the moment. So that is no guarantee that it is

going to keep the fees down. Ms Paul: As we noted, and have noted before, it is certainly not where some of these figures are suggesting it

would be—and that is a currently a deregulated and highly competitive market. And that is before you even consider the other reforms, which will also put pressure on university prices, like the extension of Commonwealth funding to private higher education providers and so on. So that is it in the general. In the particular, we did have issues with the website. I think we have expressed them on the record and are quite happy to do it again, or to be contacted by your people about some of the assumptions in the way prices were set. For example, I think there were certain prices which were not made for 2018 and so on. I cannot recall—we do not have the people with us; as I have said before, that is for outcome 3—but nonetheless, we did put this on the record in the budget estimates.

Senator RHIANNON: Do you have examples where deregulation has resulted in fees going down?



Ms Paul: Deregulation of what? The fees are not deregulated at the moment. Senator RHIANNON: Yes, but you have examined other markets. What are you basing that on? Remember,

there was a famous comment from the minister when this debate first started after the May budget. In one interview he said that yes, fees could go up and fees could go down, and then he revised that statement.

Ms Paul: Yes, for example, that is exactly what the Council of Private Higher Education has said. The head of that organisation has said that most of his members intend to pass on the extension of Commonwealth funding to private higher education providers by way of lower fees and so on. So there have been various statements. Of course, the whole point about fee deregulation is that it is up to the institutions to work it out. But there have been various statements in both directions.

In the international sphere we know, for example, that a highly competitive environment exists, where even universities' published prices are then themselves made more competitive by offering scholarships, particular discounts, early enrolment et cetera. Even with the published fees, often the fees that the international student actually ends up paying are much less. And even if you took the book fee, and not what they actually pay—which is often less because of all the special considerations that are made in a competitive environment—they do not go near the sorts of fees that have been talked about.

Senator RHIANNON: Do you have examples where international fees have gone down? Ms Paul: We might do. I would have to take that on notice. We certainly would have examples of

scholarships, discounts, et cetera, which work in a competitive environment. Senator RHIANNON: That is a little bit of cover, with all due respect, Ms Paul. The question specifically is:

where you can supply examples of where fees have gone down. Ms Paul: Yes, I said I would give it on notice, and I have given you some context. Senator Birmingham: I would also highlight, at least, in the areas where Commonwealth support is proposed

to be extended by these reforms you would expect, of course, fees to come down in relation to non-university higher education providers, in relation to diplomas and pathway courses into universities, and those expanded provisions of Commonwealth support. It should make those programs more accessible to students before we get to matters of scholarships and so forth.

Senator O'NEILL: Senator, just to close off on this, I have a couple of comments. CHAIR: Comments or questions, Senator O'Neill? After this morning I hope they are questions. Senator O'NEILL: There is a statement from Mr Griew, which was tabled here at the request of the minister

and others, that indicates information around a document 48, which was developed by department officials to illustrate the effect of budget reforms on the share of funding from the Commonwealth and the student. The questions that Senator Rhiannon is now forced to ask, and we as members of the opposition are forced to ask, are constantly based on a lack of transparency and access to the sort of information that the Australian people have a right to know. My first question is: when will the modelling that so much informs people's accurate information be available.

Ms Paul: We have given evidence here each time before—and we are really now in outcome 3—that we have done estimates, we have done costings in the budget context, we have given this evidence in both previous estimates. We have said consistently, including in questions on notice, that it would prejudice the market if we went further. We are quite happy to say all those things again. I should note—and I do not know if you were in the room—that the document you referred to has a privilege.

Senator O'NEILL: Yes, parliamentary privilege allows us to have this conversation. CHAIR: The department actually said that they were going to vet it. Ms Paul: Yes, it did. CHAIR: Given that it is just after 12:30 we have agreement amongst senators that we are going to break for

lunch. Senator Rhiannon, you can come back with cross portfolio. Do you have only one more question? Senator RHIANNON: Yes, I think so, at this stage. Senator Birmingham: If there is only one question we could finish cross portfolio. CHAIR: My question to you, Senator Rhiannon, is: will your one more question finish cross portfolio? Senator RHIANNON: Why don't I come back after lunch. CHAIR: The committee now stands suspended for lunch.

Proceedings suspended from 12:32 to 13:34



CHAIR: Senator Rhiannon. Senator RHIANNON: Thank you, Chair. Ms Paul, could you clarify some of your comments before lunch?

When we were talking about the issue of possible very high fees, maybe $100,000, were you saying that people are okay with debts of $100,000 if they do not have to pay up-front?

Ms Paul: No. What we were saying was not only do we dispute the assumptions that are made on the Greens website but also we have said in here before that there are a wealth of quotes from sector people and others to suggest the fees will not be anything like that. The bottom line is no; we are not saying that.

Senator RHIANNON: Irrespective of the amount—let us take the amount out—are you saying that people are okay with debt if they do not have to pay up-front? Is that what you are saying or is that what your research has found?

Senator Birmingham: Let us just be clear, and let Ms Paul answer, that in relation to the types of debt people take on in relation to higher education fees, we are talking about debt where repayment is contingent upon income levels down the track as well. That is another aspect of the misconceptions that occur in some of this debate. Firstly, there is no expectation of up-front fees being required under any higher education reforms; secondly, the income contingent nature of any repayments remains, meaning that you have to earn in excess of $50,000 or so to be facing any repayments. Ms Paul can obviously respond to the specific allegations or queries you are making, Senator Rhiannon.

Ms Paul: That is exactly what we have found. As I have said before—as we have said before here and as I said this morning, and we are still back in outcome 3 territory, but anyway—in the middle of last year we attended 46 expos and so on, open days et cetera, and talked to about 8,000 prospective students and families. There was a view, a fear, that HECS-HELP was going to cease and that people would have to pay all their fees up-front. When it was explained to them on those occasions that that was not the case, people were relieved.

We have talked about the objectives of the campaign, which were to counter misconceptions. The formal market research reinforced the misconceptions that we had found from those expos. The fact is that the system remains. Certainly, I know that our people—and they can talk more under outcome 3—spoke to people at those expos and so on and gave them the information that they did not have to spend a cent up-front and they did not have to pay until they reached a certain reasonable income level, which will be $50,000 or so. And, of course, under the new bill, if passed, parents of new-borns would have their interest held for five years—a zero interest rate for five years and not even CPI. I am told that when we informed students on those occasions that the current system would stay in terms of the arrangements, they found that to be relieving.

We have talked here this morning about the objectives of the campaign, we have talked about the market research and we have talked about the top line results—as we have said, the evaluation is ongoing now—which would suggest that there was a slight shift in people's understanding of the current system and some clearing of misconception. That was, I think, in the first phase of the campaign.

Senator RHIANNON: Did you attend any of these expos yourself? Ms Paul: No, I did not. That is why I have been saying that we should deal with these matters under outcome

3. If you want to question the people who did go to them and get direct feedback later today, I would welcome that. There are also quotes and so on from the market research which we can provide to you. For example, I remember one which I read which was when someone was asked in the market research if the Commonwealth was involved and they said, 'Is that the Commonwealth Bank?' There was quite a widespread misunderstanding of even the current system and there was a fear about what was purportedly going to happen.

Senator RHIANNON: When you spoke earlier about fees and published fees, were you suggesting that they may have, in some cases, overstated the actual prices?

Ms Paul: We think your website has. I was not saying anything about the campaign. Senator RHIANNON: No, I am talking about the actual fees that are publicised. I got that impression from

the formulation that you used, so I just wanted you to clarify. Ms Paul: Yes. We have always said on the record—and there are plenty of quotes from people in the sector

that call it a scare campaign, not my words, about $100,000 degrees and so on, which is not what people in the sector are saying. We have said that here before many times.

Senator RHIANNON: I was checking on the official data that you were referring to. Thank you. Senator O'NEILL: With regard to the declaration of the expenditure on the contact centre, the department

hotline, of $6,179 for 136 calls, which equates to about $45 per call, do you consider that good value for money?



Ms Paul: It depends entirely on what that money was for. We were doing that analysis in the context of a media release which was using a different figure. It depends on what that money was for. It could have been to develop, for example, the scripts. There is a whole bunch of infrastructure like writing the scripts for a call centre. I do not know what the call cost is in our call centre at the moment. I suspect it is considerably less than $45. The money is not used in that way; the money is used to write scripts et cetera. I do not know everything that was inside that $6,179. I am quite happy to take that on notice and unpack that for you.

Senator O'NEILL: Thank you. I would like that breakdown. The other thing is this headline data that have been referred to on a number of occasions. It is a shame we do not have richer data to examine on this occasion. Considering the language and the descriptors, and a slight shift in perception—it seemed very qualified language—given the program was $14.6 million for the campaign, how much of that has been expended so far?

Ms Paul: We have committed about eight, I think we said—that is not spent; there would be less spent. Senator O'NEILL: To get results that show a slight shift, it does seem to be extraordinary as an outcome. Ms Paul: These are just top-line results and I think they were done after the first couple of weeks. There has

been another couple of weeks, which is what of course the formal evaluation will go to. Senator O'NEILL: It would be good to get some detail about that. Also, did the department have in mind the

degree of shift along those identified areas that you are engaging with? Ms Paul: You do not know what the degree of shift is necessarily going to be. We are talking about people's

attitudes. These things are like public health campaigns and so on. Senator O'NEILL: Yes, which are evidence based and research based, so you have statements of where you

are as a baseline and a target that you want to achieve Ms Paul: Maybe you do; maybe I misunderstand their character. Senator O'NEILL: If there is any documentation around the articulation of that research—this is the baseline,

this is where we are—that would be very helpful to see that. Ms Paul: I think we have already taken it on notice. There is baseline research done through market research

before the campaign. Senator O'NEILL: Yes—where people were at this slight shift and on what criteria were the shifts

determined? What was the assessment made under? Ms Paul: We did read that and it went to a shift in the level of understanding, upwards, of current policy and

of current arrangements like HECS-HELP, and, as I understand it, an increase in understanding of the potential reforms as well. Whether that can be quantified, I do not think that is the nature of top-line research. I think it is of a more qualitative nature.

Senator O'NEILL: I would appreciate having more detail about that. Given the very difficult passage of this piece of legislation in terms of the government's point of view and its rejection by the Senate was all happening at the time of the rollout of the advertising campaign and when the assessments were being undertaken, could you ascertain what the questions were around people's understanding of the legislation? I am sure that that would have been an impacting factor on some of this. I would like to know any questions around that. Were questions taking into account the legislative progress or failure to progress the bill and the public commentary around that, because that was quite significant in terms of public information at the time this campaign was being evaluated.

Ms Paul: The nature of this campaign is an awareness campaign—so it is awareness that is being tested, which is perhaps what you are talking about.

Senator O'NEILL: But you did say 'change in understanding', which is connected to knowledge, and knowledge in the public place clearly would have played into this.

Ms Paul: Yes. It would have been testing. For example, the market research was testing—whoever they were talking to in the focus groups—what is the level of understanding of the current system, and what is the level of awareness of the reforms. We have talked about that here as being low on both counts, which matched what we had found at the open days and so on. So, as to the research itself, I think I have taken on notice whether we can give you that research. I think I took that on notice for Senator Carr. The research talks about a clear need or a rationale, if you like—I am not quite sure of the words; we would have to look at the report—for offering people information, because clearly the level of awareness of both the current system and the proposed reforms was found to be low.

CHAIR: There are no further questions for cross-portfolio.



Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority [13:46]

CHAIR: I welcome the officials from Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority. Mr Randall, do you have an opening statement.

Mr Randall: No, thank you. Senator O'NEILL: It is good to see you again. Can I go straight to the languages curriculum. I have some

more general questions but I will just ask a few specific ones, if I can, straight up. In relation to the 2014-15 budget, there was an initiative of $1.8 million for ACARA to improve the take-up of foreign languages. Can you provide a breakdown of how that $1.8 million has been or will be spent by key milestones for each language.

Mr Randall: At the high level there is $1.2 million in the current financial year and $600,000 in the second year to develop an additional number of languages. If you want the breakdown as to how we are spending it, I would probably take that on notice. Dr Lambert may have some of it. For the level of detail you want, it is probably better to take that on notice.

Senator O'NEILL: I note that you provided that for the Classical Greek and Classical Latin courses. Dr Lambert: Yes. Senator O'NEILL: You indicated the costs of the developmental course at $50,000; curriculum writing,

$127,000; consultation, $12,000; curriculum final release, $41,000; and the total estimated cost of developing those costs at $231,200 each. In the same format would be very helpful, Dr Lambert.

Dr Lambert: Sure. Senator O'NEILL: You advised in response to my question of how many students were studying classical

Greek or Latin that you did not actually have any data. Is that still the same situation? Dr Lambert: Yes. We do not have that data. It is held by the states and the territories, and it changes from

year to year. I cannot tell you how many there will be this year. Senator O'NEILL: Is that the case for all languages? Dr Lambert: Yes. Senator O'NEILL: And other subjects? Dr Lambert: Yes. Mr Randall: In this area we are talking F to 10 curriculum. In the senior secondary curriculum there is much

more detail but again by state and territory for student enrolments, when it comes to F to 10 curriculum the states all have different standards and ways of recording it. We are not in a position to be able to bring all that together to give an answer—you would have to get that on a state-by-state basis.

Senator O'NEILL: And you are not interested in knowing how many students are participating in these courses that you are creating?

Mr Randall: That is a different thing. If I expand upon my previous answer, we know for example that in Victoria there is a policy requirement to have all students study languages across F to 10, so my answer would then be, in that policy setting, all students are studying a language. It is not a matter of a lack of interest; my answer was about how we could collect it and assemble it in a comparable, meaningful set of data. But it is contingent upon the state and territory policies around teaching and learning languages.

Senator O'NEILL: Which does vary, I will give you that. Does ACARA have any indication at all of the number of students studying 7 to 10 classical Greek or Latin?

Mr Randall: Not at the moment, no. Senator O'NEILL: No ballpark figure? You cannot even give me rounded off numbers within 10 or100? Mr Randall: No, not here at the moment. I am happy to look at that. The languages curriculum that we are

developing was based on the research we did when we did the initial shape paper. We can go back into some of that research that is in our shape paper development, and it was on that basis, and from feedback during that process, that the list of languages we are developing is there. The next point to make is, obviously, if you have a curriculum more students are likely to study the language. What we are working to is making the curriculum available so that people can teach it, and also, consistent with other curriculum, with a national curriculum there is much more national and concerted effort to support the teaching of languages. This is all premised on our wanting students to study languages, there is a diversity of languages there on the back of a national curriculum, and we can increase the opportunity for them to do so.



Senator O'NEILL: With specific reference, though, to classical Greek and Latin, on which I do have some data from you, what was the pent-up demand that you identified?

Mr Randall: I think we have talked about that in previous questions, though I cannot remember what detail we provided. The source for that was in the shape paper process, and we could go back and make that available to you.

Senator O'NEILL: How do you anticipate the future demand for those language skills, in terms of the skills that need developing in the country?

Mr Randall: In terms of languages and classical Greek? Senator O'NEILL: Yes. Mr Randall: I will get you some advice on that. Senator O'NEILL: Is that work that the Department of Education could do? Would they have data about the

numbers of students who are studying these, or the need for classical Greek and Latin? Mr Cook: Again, as Mr Randall has said, that data is held at a state level. I think the only place you could

possibly find data—this would be about year 12—would probably be on the National Report on Schooling, which I think is data broken down by subject area. The states would have to give us that information and we would have to go through that process. We do not have that information on hand.

Senator O'NEILL: You have articulated in your document to me the outline of the curriculum writing process. What stage is that at, and what is the process involved with curriculum writing for classical Greek and Latin?

Dr Lambert: They have not commenced yet. We have commenced Hindi and Turkish but we are in the process of seeking writers for the framework for the classical languages, and then classical Greek and Latin.

Senator O'NEILL: Do you have a timeline for the way in which you are rolling out the curriculum development for each of these language areas?

Dr Lambert: Yes. Senator O'NEILL: Where do classical Greek and Latin sit in that order? Dr Lambert: Our aim is to complete the curriculum by mid next year, with it being available at the end of

2016. Senator O'NEILL: How did you prioritise the development of these curriculums relative to one another? Dr Lambert: We identified that we needed to develop a framework first for classical languages. The current

framework we have is for modern languages— Senator O'NEILL: Hence Turkish and Hindi? Dr Lambert: Yes. That is why we commenced with that development. While we are doing that, we are

sourcing people to help us with the framework for classical languages. Senator O'NEILL: Have you acquired external personnel to undertake that framework first before they even

develop the curriculum? Dr Lambert: We are acquiring names. We are setting up a national panel with representatives from the

Classical Languages Teachers Association who will be able to identify and recommend people for that work. Senator O'NEILL: Have you given any consideration to the selection process? Dr Lambert: It will be the normal process, where we will seek expressions of interest and then, through the

board, we will provide recommendations for the board to consider. Senator O'NEILL: The payment for the curriculum writing is $127,000. Would that be part of the cost of the

curriculum writing or would that come under consultation and feedback? Dr Lambert: I have got the figures here, but I just need to highlight it in my iPad. Could I take that on notice?

The figures are not quite here as I thought they were. Senator O'NEILL: If you could, on notice, provide the actual breakdown of the costs of the process that you

are going through, because you have indicated today something that I was unaware of—that there is a framework for classical languages that is new. Where does that fit within the costings that we have received? What would the cost of employing the curriculum writers be? If you can also provide the time line and the rationale around the selection of the way in which you are going to proceed, that would be pretty helpful.

Dr Lambert: Sure.



Senator O'NEILL: Is this the general methodology in which you would develop the curricula? Is there anything particularly different about this?

Mr Randall: No, we are following the process we have used for languages, and that follows the process we have used across the board. ACARA's curriculum development process, as outlined to you, is that which broadly applied before. If we have learnt or found ways to improve, it might have changed over time. But what we are doing for languages is what we did with the other curriculum.

Senator O'NEILL: I am interested to find out how many people were beating a path to your door saying, 'We have to have classical Greek and Latin.' Where did the pent-up demand arise from and how much request for these subjects was there?

Mr Randall: I guess that goes back to the previous question, where I said we will go back in terms of the consultation. I think we have answered previously that a lot of that is more in New South Wales and Victoria than in other places, and I think that also shows where schools are focusing on it in the senior years and the like. Again, I undertook to come back to you with some advice about the consultation we did that led to the list of languages, that led to that advice, and we will add that to the advice we will come back to you with.

Senator O'NEILL: Can I ask about the government's election commitment, which was about improving the uptake of foreign languages. The Prime Minister made pretty explicit claims that at least 40 per cent of year 12 students would study a language other than English within a decade. Do you know which agency is responsible for measuring the achievement of that outcome?

Mr Randall: No. I assume the two ways of measuring that would be the department, I imagine—and I will defer to Mr Cook—but also, once we get to years 11 and 12, the source of data is the state and territory authorities, where they do report, because it is a course based curriculum around the country and therefore that measure is easier to look at.

Senator O'NEILL: Mr Cook, can you add any more to that? Mr Cook: That is an election commitment of the government. I think we answered a question on notice to you

about the range of ways in which we were looking to achieve that. This is by the end of the decade. Obviously we will play a key role around measuring that and the progress in relation to that.

Senator O'NEILL: So the Department of Education will be the agency that is responsible for measuring the achievement of this 40 per cent target?

Mr Cook: We will certainly measure it, that is correct, but we will have to get the data from the states and territories. So states and territories will have to play a key role in actually delivering it.

Senator O'NEILL: With respect to the funding allocation to enable this, we have heard about the $600 million for improving the take-up of foreign languages. Is that the same money you were referring to before in your answer to me, Mr Randall?

Mr Randall: That is the provision to us to develop the curriculum, yes. Senator O'NEILL: Is there any additional funding, Mr Cook, that I am not aware of to see this through to

2016? Mr Cook: There is a range of funding, and I think we answered this in our response to your question on

notice. There is funding for Teach for Australia, where they have been asked to ensure that a certain percentage of their graduates have a specialisation in languages. The TEMAG report has just been released, which recommends that language is a specialisation, which comes out of pre-service as well. So there is existing money, which would be reconceptualised in that sense, as well as additional money that we have also mentioned.

Senator O'NEILL: I want to move onto the issue of the National Trade Cadetship curriculum for ACARA. Would you give me a progress report on how that is going.

Mr Randall: The work around the year 9 and 10 curriculum through the National Trade Cadetship curriculum has been delivered and we are now doing some work to support the take-up of that. On the senior secondary curriculum work, as a result of the government's commitments and their allocation of funds, we have stopped work on the senior secondary curriculum. I said we stopped; actually, the focus of that project was in two parts. We started with 9 and 10 and we never commenced the 11 and 12 work.

Senator O'NEILL: Were you instructed by the government to pause or never commence your development of the National Trade Cadetship program?

Mr Randall: There are two points to note. The ministers' Education Council is what gives us our instructions around the work we are doing, and the 9 and 10 work and the senior secondary work were both discussed there.



Then the 9 and 10 work was clear and we have proceeded in that way; for the 11 and 12 work I need to remind myself of exactly where that instruction came from, but the change of policy meant that we did not proceed with that work.

Senator O'NEILL: When you say 'the change of policy', what exactly do you mean? You have a very, very clear time line on your website about what was proposed, which would have led to the implementation of the National Trade Cadetship curriculum from February 2015. Is that no longer the case because of a policy change?

Mr Randall: No, I would expect that is 9 and 10. Senator O'NEILL: No, that is National Trade Cadetship years 11 and 12. Dr Lambert: It must be still on the website. Mr Randall: That is an area that we will have to attend to. Senator O'NEILL: I am not so worried about the information disappearing off the website—we have a

snapshot of it—but the reality is that there was a change in policy, as you have just said, that meant that this program of getting the Trade Cadetships curriculum established has now been interrupted. What was the policy change and where did it come from?

Mr Randall: The funding for National Trade Cadetships was from the federal government. The work we were doing that preceded it was initiated by the previous government. With the change of government, there was a focus on and support for continuing the year 9 and 10 work. The change of policy with the allocation of the funds was not to continue with the year 11 and 12 work. I will defer to Mr Cook on the broader policy framework, but it is bound up in the vocational education policy and approaches that the government has.

Senator O'NEILL: To be clear, the National Trade Cadetship curriculum was something you were working on as ACARA prior to the change of government. With the change of government, 9 and 10 continued but the work on the year 11 and 12 National Trade Cadetship curriculum ceased.

Mr Randall: I corrected myself earlier on. The work started with 9 and 10 and—I corrected my answer earlier on—we did not commence the 11 and 12 work.

Senator O'NEILL: It never started? Mr Randall: It never started. Senator O'NEILL: It never started because there was a change of government? Mr Randall: No. Senator O'NEILL: There was a change of policy? Senator Ryan: I do not think that is what he is saying. Senator O'NEILL: I am trying to hear clearly. Senator Ryan: You are asking the question again. I do not think that is what Mr Randall was saying. He did

not use the phrases you have used; he is taking you through a series of events. I just encourage you to— Mr Randall: The logic from a curriculum design point of view was always to start with 9 and 10 and then

follow through with 11 and 12. Senator O'NEILL: Is it on your forward program? Mr Randall: It was on our work program, yes. Senator O'NEILL: It was on your forward work program and is no longer on your forward work program? Mr Randall: Yes. Senator O'NEILL: And that is a result of a policy change? Mr Randall: Yes. Senator O'NEILL: By whom? Mr Randall: The government. Senator O'NEILL: Which government? Mr Randall: The federal government—the current federal government. Senator O'NEILL: The current federal government policy change means that work on years 11 and 12 is not

going forward. Your forward program has been changed; there has been a policy change by the Abbott government.

Mr Cook: To clarify, the Education Council is the authority under which ACARA works.



Senator O'NEILL: Sorry, would you say— Mr Cook: So the Education Council would have to support that decision and direct ACARA to stop that work

because it is the Education Council that directs it. Senator O'NEILL: Have they done that? Mr Cook: My understanding is that, at the last meeting of the Education Council, for example, there was

discussion about directing ACARA to cease all work on secondary curriculum—I think— Mr Randall: Senior secondary. Mr Cook: because states and territories had no interest and they have been very clear that they were not

supporting continuing work by ACARA in years 11 and 12. So it is the Education Council making that decision, just to clarify.

Senator Ryan: I will take on notice what the exact decision of the Education Council was, but what Mr Cook is saying reflects my memory of the previous meeting—that the states and territories guard their autonomy in senior secondary, years 11 and 12, particularly strongly. That is reflected on both sides of politics at the state level.

Senator O'NEILL: You cannot give me an expected date for when this program might commence in some form across the states—on their initiative rather than yours?

Mr Randall: No, I cannot. Senator O'NEILL: Can you tell me about the funding that was allocated to that? What has happened with the

funding that was allocated to that work? Mr Randall: I will take that on notice. Again, I do not have the detail you want in front of me. I will give you

the detail about what was provided and I will respond on what has happened with that funding. I will take that on notice and come back to you.

Senator O'NEILL: Is the cut to ACARA's funding part of the reason that this course and its preparation did not go ahead?

Mr Randall: No, absolutely not. Senator Ryan: What Mr Cook just explained and what I said I took on notice for you was to get the detail of

the Education Council—which ACARA reports to and is responsible to—decision. I outlined my recollection, and Mr Cook mentioned his recollection, which was that the states and territories guard their autonomy and discretion in the senior secondary curriculum, years 11 and 12, particularly strongly. That was the driver of the decision. But I have taken that on notice, so you will get an answer.

Senator O'NEILL: Let us go back to the driver of the decision to establish it in the first place. What were some of the key reasons this national trade cadetship curriculum was being considered—indeed, years 9 and 10 are now underway. Why was it being considered? Maybe Dr Lambert can answer.

Mr Randall: At the time, the broad— Senator O'NEILL: Can I ask Dr Lambert? Dr Lambert: I was not there at the time. Mr Randall: The broad focus of the year 9 and 10—and then years 11 and 12—national trade cadetship was a

focus on work readiness as a general proposition. I will come back to you with more detail, noting that it now goes back a number of years. The proposition was taken initially to the Education Council and there was support for the focus on years 9 and 10 and we have that curriculum in place. The focus was on a combination of literacy, numeracy and work-ready skills. That curriculum draws out a focus on literacy and numeracy and giving young people a better understanding of work and work situations—work readiness.

The issue with the year 11 and 12 program—and this relates to the point Mr Cook made—was more contested. The vocational education and training programs available in states and territories vary a little bit. That is one of the reasons we got years 9 and 10 out of the way first. We then moved on to the more difficult issue of years 11 and 12. As Senator Ryan has reinforced, there were a whole lot of issues with the states and territories in that area, so we took that work slowly. With the change of government, we are having another look at vocational education and training in the senior years. That is a broad overview. It was driven by a focus on work readiness—understanding work situations—but also with a focus on literacy and numeracy. That is being delivered in the year 9 and 10 curriculum. But, having said that, I will come back to you with some of the documentation from the time.



Senator O'NEILL: With the change to the age people are required to remain in school up to, clearly there is the possibility of doing industry endorsed vocational learning programs at schools to integrate with skilled occupations. There were key areas that were going to be targeted: manufacturing, community services, health and agrifood—developing deep knowledge of vocational skills within an industry. These are the sorts of programs that were considered important for student retention in year 11 and 12—which in the past was considered 'post-secondary school' but is now a core part of secondary school. How do you think the removal of courses of this nature—the National Trade Cadetship—and the closure of Acacia is going to impact on academic performance and year 12 retention?

Mr Randall: It is not a removal, because they were not there. Part of the development, at the time of the proposals and the initial work that we were starting, was to see where these could be best placed within states and territories. Notwithstanding we have done 15 bits of curriculum in senior secondary, the chair of our board reported to the education council last year that, beyond those 15 and in other areas, the significant view around states and territories is for us not to continue to proceed in the senior secondary space.

Senator O'NEILL: Can you give me some explanation about why that is the case. Mr Randall: I think some states and territories were of the view that this was pure duplication—for example,

the Victorian Certificate of Applied Learning creates a whole range of opportunities for students around the VET space—and they were seeing this as being a duplication of things that they were already doing at a state level. They could not actually see a use for that. The Queensland certificate now has a whole range of VET stuff in there. There is the VET in Schools program as well. They are arguing a similar scenario for the national curriculum in years 11 and 12. They all have their HSC or their VCE, or whatever it might be. States and territories, which is reflected in the conversation at the last meeting of the council, had a view that this was duplication rather than enhancement.

Senator O'NEILL: But it is a tool for the federal government to respond to skill shortages and have some influence on that. What happened to the early work with regard to partnerships with industry?

Mr Randall: Dr Lambert has just reminded me about what I said earlier on, when making a point about where we were up to with years 9, 10, 11 and 12. I said we had not started writing the curriculum. We had conducted a forum. We brought together groups of people to scope some of that work.

Senator O'NEILL: When was that? Dr Lambert: 2013. But I will need to take on notice what the particular day was. Senator O'NEILL: Thank you. That would be helpful. Mr Randall: We had started some of the conversation through that national forum about the shape and form

of the curriculum. But, again, I made the point earlier on about the progress of that work, the support or lack thereof in states and territories, but also further down the track in terms of the change to the election. I do not have the brief in front of me in terms of all those time lines. I am happy to give you some advice about what we did and the time frame so that it is all on one page.

Senator O'NEILL: Thanks for that. You took on notice to get me the details about a number of matters. Could I also ask for the names of the people that you consulted and the industries that you consulted to get that advice.

Mr Randall: Sure. Senator O'NEILL: The 9 to 10 program is seemingly not seen as a duplication, because it is a national

rollout. Is that correct? Okay. How many placements with the national 9 to 10 rollout of the National Trade Cadetship have occurred, and what partnerships are established there?

Mr Randall: We will have to come back to you with some information, if we can collect it, about what states and territories are doing with that. It is not different from my answer on languages. We develop the curriculum. We are not responsible for implementing it. It is there, and then states and territories within their frameworks will make decisions about implementing it. I understand your question. We do not have that data. I will have to have a look to what extent it is available for us to bring back to you.

Senator O'NEILL: What processes do you have in place for those implementing the program? Is it implemented in every state and territory?

Mr Randall: It is available for states and territories to use. My point just a moment ago was we need to have a look at what decisions they are taking and in what time lines. I think, in a question on notice, we have given you some advice about where various states and territories are up to with things. It will be said in that context. There may be some that have not even looked at it yet. We will have to take that on notice and come back to you.



Senator O'NEILL: Can you give me particular advice about the nature of the structured work placements, because clearly that would be really important information. That is a critical part of the success of these curriculum innovations.

Mr Randall: We can give you what the curriculum has designed and outlined. You asked about numbers and take-ups—I am just being explicit there. I do not know whether I will be able to give you that data, because it is a matter of whether it is available to us.

Senator O'NEILL: As much as you can from your state colleagues would be— Mr Randall: Sure. I understand. Mr Cook: I think the year 9 and 10 work is more focused on vocational learning as opposed to work

placements. Is that correct, Mr Randall? Mr Randall: Again, we will have a look. There is a notion of even the use of work placement around, and

how it varies. But there is some engagement in there as opposed to work placement or workplace settings. We will come back clarifying what the curriculum intended and then, to the extent that we can, the extent of take-up.

Senator O'NEILL: Going back to your annual report, on page 11, with regard to the national trade cadetships, it is written: In May 2014 the Department of Education requested that ACARA pause all work on the Year 11-12 curriculum until further advised. Why did the department determine that?

Mr Cook: It was the department money, in that the Australian government was the only one that put money up. I think one of the issues was that we were hearing from states and territories that the interest around developing senior secondary work in this area was not strong. So the department would not have a view it should invest money in something that states and territories may not use.

Senator O'NEILL: Could you provide me with some indication of the use of the senior secondary curriculum that you have developed to date.

Mr Randall: Yes. The status of implementation of the 15 courses in English, maths, science, history, geography—

Senator O'NEILL: Yes. Mr Randall: Yes, we should be able to do that. Senator O'NEILL: Generally, how would you characterise their uptake and their use? Mr Randall: I think pretty positive, given where we are. Western Australia is one example which, I think with

maybe the exception of chemistry, has adopted it—I do not know the percentage, but it is very large—as the courses are written. I know Victoria is using it as it is going through its review process, and I think in the ACT there is nothing where they are drawing directly on them. But I will expand and go round the country so I can give you a summary.

Senator O'NEILL: Could you give me a state-by-state analysis. I am a little surprised to hear that you were having a reasonable degree of uptake of your senior curriculum development and then all of a sudden it has stopped.

Mr Randall: The answer for that in some ways is that English, maths and science are some of the easier ones to do because they are a common curriculum. Around the country the extent to which you have maths does not vary a lot. Part of the debate was when you get into the other courses beyond those—the arts or some more of the humanities—that is where there is greater difference, and that is where the tension started coming back. I think it is not a surprise in some ways that people are pretty happy to work with the physics course we developed because it took account of what they were currently doing and of international practice and the like, and then built upon it.

Dr Lambert: Can I add that, because there are exit examinations around the country around senior secondary, for the states and territories it is a matter of timing. For those where the uptake is greater it was right at the time when they were redeveloping all their senior curriculum. Other states and territories will wait until it is time—

Senator O'NEILL: It is the next phase. Dr Lambert: Yes, given that examinations are such a key element of the work they do. Senator O'NEILL: Could I move on, unless you need to go over to Senator Ruston. CHAIR: Senator Ruston, do you have any questions for ACARA? Senator RUSTON: I was wondering how online had been coming along.



Mr Randall: The short answer, I think again, is 'pretty well'. That is not to understate some of the challenges. I think I would probably remind you that from our point of view there are three broad areas of work. One is getting the tests ready to run online, and Dr Rabinowitz is leading that. ACARA has a lead role in relation to that. The second key bit of work is building the capability to deliver the tests online. Work is underway through Education Services Australia, funded by the federal government, to develop that capability. Then the third bit of work is the readiness work with states and territories. There is a lot of coming together where states and territories are doing a significant amount of work to work towards it. I guess the point I would add, which is a focus for us and others, is the ministerial decision of last year that the transition would start in 2017 and we are working towards 2019, when everyone is online. The timeline has been set. The work is underway. In a moment, if Dr Rabinowitz wants to add some of our work, we have got the role to get NAPLAN ready to run online. Capabilities is the second bit and the readiness work is the third bit. Do you want to say something about—

Dr Rabinowitz: Thank you. The two points that we focusing on in getting the test ready are making sure that items themselves are computer ready; and that the device, the platform that gets built, can work with our items, is fair to all students and can handle different types of devices so that there is no single, no favourite, and you do not have a device that can run the test but still have some flexibility in which device you use from a local perspective.

Senator RUSTON: Are you, at this stage, seeing any obvious issues emerging as you proceed towards your outcomes, to 2013.

Dr Rabinowitz: There is a lot of research and a lot of work that has to be done. There is one interesting one around devices that we are dealing with now: one of the original specifications we had was that, if you use a tablet in order to preserve what I call real estate, on the tablet you needed a detachable keyboard. That made a lot of sense to us and to programs around the world. We are getting some feedback that a lot of students who use tablets do not really know what a keyboard is detachably. So we need to balance what is better: to preserve the space, to display the item or for students to be more comfortable in a mode of administration that you are used to. Those are the kind of interesting things that you think you know about, and then you get some information and you get smarter and better doing it.

Senator RUSTON: The time frames that you have set yourself for delivery, you believe, are sufficient to be able to deal unknown things that are popping up. Who would have thought—

Dr Rabinowitz: We will be ready in 2017—yes, Ma'am. Senator RUSTON: That is great. Do you want me to go on with more NAPLAN? CHAIR: If you have more questions to ask, you are quite entitled to ask. Senator RUSTON: I can go all afternoon. One of the things at the last estimates was that there were some

comments about the speed at which the NAPLAN results were being currently being turned around. Have we seen any improvement, any change or any work there, Mr Randall?

Mr Randall: Yes. Certainly, this year the results, as a result of—and, again, I think there was a strong imperative and challenge from the federal government on being elected and that was taken up by state and territory ministers. That has been an expectation, and we delivered last year. It varies. I think the results were available four weeks earlier than they had been. From our point of view, we achieved that. We are going this year for another two weeks.

Senator RUSTON: What time frame would that then bring it down to? Mr Randall: We are getting back very close to the 12-week goal. I was just going to add: some states and

territories did better than others, because it was a matter of them getting the results and their capacity to then get the reports out to schools. We have got some data—and again I would be happy to provide it—that indicates where each state and territory got. But there was a significant gain last year, and we are seeking to build upon that this year.

Senator RYAN: Could I just add something, Senator Ruston? Senator RUSTON: Yes. Senator RYAN: I would like to congratulate all those involved. Yes, there is some variation against states but

the minister and the government set this as a priority. What this means—remember, this is not higher stakes testing; this is a diagnostic tool, primarily—is the achievement that has been outlined is a month extra in effectively a nine-month school year where teachers and parents have information about the strengths and challenges that children have in learning. That is a month extra that teaching can be tailored to address those issues. The further we bring it down—and remember that this is to enable parents and teachers to know where the learning challenges are and where the strengths are—it makes our education systems more responsive. It



empowers teachers, and particularly empowers parents. So it is a significant achievement to get this information back into the hands of those who can use it to make a difference quicker. A month extra in a school year is a significant amount of time.

Senator RUSTON: Yes, absolutely. That was the concern raised last time, so that is fabulous news. Dr Rabinowitz, with the move to online in 2017, are we imagining or envisaging that we are going to be able to further accelerate the turnaround times on these test results?

Mr Randall: Absolutely. Noting the points that Dr Rabinowitz just made, to move it on-line the work we are seeking to realise through the design of our assessment and what we call the tailored test approach means we will get better assessment. It is going to be faster as well, because there are significant gains in on-line marking. You take out all the manual handling. From our point of view you take away some of our security risks.

We will, again, this year, distribute things in boxes around the country. There are a number of opportunities, but building upon the point that Senator Ryan made, we may get much more gains than we have been able to get under the current paper-and-pencil system and that timeline. We are talking about numbers of weeks—a handful of fewer weeks. We are not quite at the point where we can say, 'That's it; it's two or three,' but we will be working with states and territories to pursue all that, noting that in 2017 and 2018, we will have some schools in some jurisdictions still running paper while we are doing on-line. But by the time we get to 2019 and it is all on-line we will see absolutely reduced times. Then, with the point that Senator Ryan made, the data will be able to be used to drive improved teaching and learning.

Senator RUSTON: That is great news. Thank you very much. Senator O'NEILL: Could I ask for the department to outline the framework for open learning program? Mr Cook: That is a little later, in outcome 2. I will be here for outcome 2. It is not an ACARA issue; it is

actually— Senator O'NEILL: It is just that my question is related to money that has come to this platform for the

development of the platform, that was taken from the open learning platform. Mr Cook: Some of the commonality is about the interoperability issues—about different systems working

together. This will be the key product for that. So, basically that money would have been used for interoperability, anyway. We now have a key platform—which will be NAPLAN on line—for part of that process.

Senator O'NEILL: Open learning is a different cohort that you would be interacting with, is it? Mr Cook: Not really. The Framework for Open Learning is about a whole range of IT issues. Again, I will get

our people to come and talk at outcome 2. Senator O'NEILL: Thank you. That is fine. Can I go to the minister's announcement, in October, that $24.7 million was committed. We have been talking

about that. This was part of an agreement that was made with the states and territories. Will the states and territories be contributing to this initiative? I see Mr Cook nodding.

Mr Cook: Again, that is in outcome 2, but I am happy to do it quickly now. CHAIR: Can we save those for outcome 2, because if ACARA cannot answer— Senator O'NEILL: I was just interested to see how the partnership was going on with the states and ACARA

with regard to this. Mr Randall: In my answer to Senator Ruston, I think I outlined the three bits. It is across all of those that we

are working together. There is what we are calling an on-line assessment working group, which comprises people from the states and territories, the Catholic independent sector with ESA. I would characterise it as a very productive relationship. We are working towards that target—that timeline—and the expectation that ministers have set. So, Senator, I think it is very positive.

Senator O'NEILL: In anticipation of questions later, how much is the state contribution, or the various agencies that are coming? You have on-line testing sites. For the full roll-out you indicated that everybody would be on line by 2019. That is your goal, and things are on target—

Mr Randall: That is the goal the council has set to work towards; yes. Senator O'NEILL: How are you going with your roll-out? What are your targets, where are you up to, and

what is the forward program? Mr Randall: We start NAPLAN on-line in 2017. Then in 2018 and 2019 we are all on-line. So, if you like,

there are three years. In terms of progress towards that, we are already running some of our sample assessment program on-line. We have a strong partnership with Education Services Australia about delivering that.



Senator O'NEILL: In how many schools, in what jurisdictions? Mr Randall: That is a sample that is drawn across the country. It is about 10,000 students in every state. So

every state and territory is involved but it is a sample at the national level. I could give you some data on how many schools, and things like that.

Senator O'NEILL: That would wonderful. And tell me how you are anticipating growing that number. What is your roll-out plan?

Mr Randall: We will not grow that. That is the sample assessment program. So for 2015 and 2016 it stays there, but states and territories are using that as a source. Then we are working with states and territories for them to be looking towards 2017 as the first year when they will start taking up NAPLAN on line. We do not have this information at the moment, but we will work with states and territories during the course of this year for them to be planning that. Each state and territory will have its own plan about their transition.

Senator O'NEILL: We talked in previous committee hearings about the cuts to your funding at ACARA. Could you just give me an update on how they have been applied in ACARA.

Mr Randall: We have talked about it before. From my point of view, that there is a reduction in funding this year from last year is not a cut. It is part of the four-year plan that was agreed to. We are now in the third of our four years. We are going into the fourth of the four years, and there will be another reduction. But that was part of what the original bid was for.

So it is all part of the planned thing. I could go back and give you the document that was submitted to the Education Council three years ago. That projected. On the basis of that, the Education Council agreed to funding over the four years, and that is what we are working towards. Along the way, other programs have come in. that is in addition to this, but, as we have talked about before, I do not characterise them as cuts.

Senator O'NEILL: It is 'potatoes' and 'potahtoes'; I call them cuts and you call them reductions. CHAIR: Was that four years ago? Mr Randall: Three-or-so years ago the Education Council agreed to a four-year plan for ACARA. It had

elements of My School development and then operation. So you can imagine that there is a spike in funding in the early years. There was curriculum development and then we are where we are now. We have finished it. You see a large amount in terms of dollars and staffing. Now that has been reduced. Then NAPLAN is in a pretty steady state. So in the budget that is there.

CHAIR: So it has run to plan. Mr Randall: It is running to plan. CHAIR: Who was the minister four years ago? Senator RYAN: It was hard to keep up. CHAIR: I know; thank you, Senator Ryan. Senator RYAN: I am just trying to remember. Mr Randall: Minister Gillard was the education minister at the time. CHAIR: She set that funding plan in place. Mr Randall: The Education Council set that. Senator O'NEILL: Can I just check the staffing levels. I think the average staffing level was expected to

reduce from 116 in 2013-14 to 95 in 2014-15. Mr Randall: Yes. Senator O'NEILL: Is that the reduction that you are still expecting? Mr Randall: By the end of the year that will be the average. Yes. Senator O'NEILL: You are on track to achieve that reduction? Mr Randall: Yes. Senator O'NEILL: Has there been any revision to the agency staffing level, at all? Mr Randall: No. Those projections ae still there. We are working with them but I would make two

observations. One is that because we have had additional funding for programs like languages and others, the figure is in relation to the core funding. So if you came and counted the heads there would be a few more, whether it was in national trade cadetships or languages. But we are working towards that in terms of an average level.

Senator O'NEILL: Could you advise, either today or on notice, what positions have gone.



Mr Randall: Yes, I could do that--and which ones have come. It is an ebb and flow. Senator O'NEILL: Yes; what has gone down and what has gone up—a full picture. How many redundancies

have there been at ACARA in 2014-15? Mr Randall: Again, I would need to go back and seek that. I will come back to you. There have been some

because we have changed, along the way, our structural arrangements. We have decided, organisationally, priorities. I recall we did some work within the communications team and adjusted some things there. So there have been some there, which were about the operation of the organisation as opposed to any other factors. I will come back to you with that advice.

Senator O'NEILL: Could you could do a 2014-15 acquittal of redundancies—forced and voluntary—and a comparison with 2013-14, for the same matrix.

Mr Randall: I will give you, for 2013-14 and 2014-15, our staffing and the changes and the extent that those changes have been from redundancies. Yes, I can provide that.

Senator O'NEILL: Whether forced or voluntary and identified accordingly? Mr Randall: Yes, and/or people just choosing to move on, for example. Senator O'NEILL: Okay. The MYEFO contained—I cannot be sarcastic—more news for you about reduced

funding of $400,000. That is to take effect in 2017-18. Mr Randall: Sure. Senator O'NEILL: When did you become aware that you were going to have this reduction imposed? Mr Randall: I became aware of it in the lead-up to the release of the statements, but again– Senator O'NEILL: So you were advised before the MYEFO was announced? Mr Randall: I was aware that that would appear there. My comment, though, would be that— Senator O'NEILL: Were you advised of the amount? Mr Randall: I guess I am getting ahead of the question, but because we do not have an approved plan beyond

June 2016 these are projections that the federal government is making. I cannot then comment on the effect because I do not have an approved plan to comment on. So I was aware that it was there, but there is no approved plan, no activity that we are doing. I am not assuming there will not be, but we are now in the process of coming through to the Education Council during the course of this year to come up with the next four-year plan, for 2016-17 and beyond. It will be in that context that I would imagine, as we are working with the federal government as well as the eight state and territory governments, that will be taken into account.

Senator O'NEILL: But you will have 400,000 less? Mr Cook: They may not. ACARA may come in under budget, which is a million dollars less than their

current budget. So what Mr Randall is saying is that ACARA has not put its budget to the Education Council yet. There is a standard funding line in the Commonwealth budget for ACARA. ACARA does not have a budget for those years. If ACARA puts in a budget that is a million dollars less—

Senator O'NEILL: Yes. Is that standing budget what is being reduced by $400,000? Mr Cook: Within 'quality outcomes—other'. That is where that money is from. So it is not from ACARA's

budget per se, because they have not submitted a budget at this point. Senator O'NEILL: But there will be less money for them to do their work, ultimately. Mr Cook: It depends on what they put in as a budget. If they put a budget in that is a million dollars less than

they currently have, then there is no cut to what they are being asked for at all. There is no reduction at all. Senator O'NEILL: Yes, it is which comes first and which comes second, but there will be less funding to do

the work of ACARA than— Mr Cook: Well, there may not be because— Ms Paul: It depends on what the work is. Senator Ryan: It depends what work they determine to do. Mr Randall: That is right. Senator O'NEILL: So you don't think this is going to have any impact on your operations? Mr Randall: I have to go through the council and work out what the Education Council wants us to do first.

So that is what we start with. We will go through a process during the course of this year to develop a work plan.



So I cannot comment on that in any meaningful way, because it does not make sense in some ways because we do not have the plan. We do not have the budget.

Senator O'NEILL: Okay. Could I take you to the coalition's policy for schools. It is one of those blue documents, Students first, which we have had quoted to us many times here. In it the government committed to refocusing ACARA and ensuring it focused on developing the highest possible standard curriculum, transferring all data, reporting and compliance functions back to the Department of Education. Has ACARA actually been refocused? Have all the data, compliance and reporting functions been transferred to the department?

Mr Randall: No. Senator O'NEILL: No? So this says:

We will transfer all data, reporting and compliance functions that are not curriculum related back to the Department of Education … But that has not occurred?

Mr Randall: That is correct. Senator O'NEILL: So what data, reporting and compliance functions does ACARA still retain? Mr Randall: Those that we started a number of years ago, those functions that the Education Council has

agreed that we will do. I could give you a more compete answer by referring to our work plan and things like that to say 'here is what we do', but largely the data collection and reporting functions are linked to our work around My School and they are linked to our work around the collation, development and issuing of the National report on schooling.

Senator O'NEILL: So you are still doing the same work that you were doing before? Mr Randall: Yes. Senator O'NEILL: That is quite a significant thing to say, given that there was going to be a refocus and a

massive change. Ms Paul: I think Mr Cook is going to clarify the situation. Mr Cook: Just to assist with the question, a review of ACARA is required under the legislation, the ACARA

Act. The minister considered that and, based on that, the review has now begun. The outcome and the finding of that review will inform the government's commitment around refocusing ACARA. They will be two of the same, so to speak, rather than two separate disjointed processes. The review, which requires the independent reviewer to consult with states and territories and a whole range of stakeholders, is happening at the moment. The other thing we will have to take into consideration, as well, is the federation white paper process.

Senator O'NEILL: There was a lot of talk in the lead-up the election about low standards of curriculum development and questioning of the curriculum, which led to the curriculum review. How would you say that has gone?

Senator Ryan: First of all, I will say that you have assigned a particular motivation for the curriculum review. It was a promise of the then shadow minister, now minister. If you want to question the status of where that particular program is, that is fine, but I am not going to let your asserted motivation stand untested and unchallenged.

Senator O'NEILL: I think you might have to look at some of the material that went out during the election. I think you would find that my claim is pretty valid. Mr Randall, how would you characterise ACARA's response to the curriculum we have?

Mr Randall: The curriculum review is a report to government. I will leave it to the department to answer questions about that.

Senator O'NEILL: So, the report to the government about the curriculum review, considering it is about curriculum, should have led to some rather significant changes to the work of ACARA, if we believe anything that the minister said in the lead-up to the election about how the curriculum needed serious review.

Senator Ryan: I think I can clarify the time line here. The report went to the government and then the government announced its response to the report. It went to the Education Council. ACARA was asked to report on elements of the government response and that report will be tabled, I understand, at the next meeting of the Education Council, which is coming up very shortly. So, I think, given ACARA's responsibilities across the state and Commonwealth ministers, that it is only reasonable that that report be tabled by the Education Council in the first instance. Until that point we will take questions on notice, but I understand that the next Education Council meeting, when this is coming up, is in early March.



Senator O'NEILL: So, early March is when we should expect a more full response to that curriculum review?

Ms Paul: That is when state and federal education ministers will consider ACARA's response to some parts of the review, as the parliamentary secretary says, as requested by them.

Senator Ryan: The Education Council requested that ACARA make this report. Senator O'NEILL: What were the council's instructions to ACARA? Mr Randall: The recommendations of the council—and I stand to be corrected in terms of the detail—asked

us to provide some advice around four themes: one theme was resolving the crowded curriculum; another theme was about providing curriculum for students with disability; the third was about engaging parents; and the fourth was about rebalancing the curriculum. They asked for that advice back so, as has been stated, we have provided that advice, and ministers will consider it at this next council meeting.

Senator O'NEILL: You have given me the list of four items—were they given to you in writing, in terms of reference, in a letter?

Mr Cook: That is a decision of the council. There was a council paper, and council agreed to that paper. The areas that Mr Randall is talking about—those four themes—are part of the five themes that are in the Australian government response, as well as the recommendations that relate to each of those four areas. It was quite directive for ACARA: the council has asked them, in relation to the recommendations that relate to each of those four themes, to provide advice back to council about those recommendations.

Senator O'NEILL: Is there any public documentation around this? Mr Cook: The communique would cover that off, I would imagine. Ms Paul: Yes, I think it would. Mr Cook: The council communique would have mentioned this. Senator O'NEILL: I would appreciate a copy of that. I do not have that to hand. Ms Paul: Yes, sure. Senator O'NEILL: Thank you very much. Have you provided that advice yet, given that the meeting is

imminent? Mr Cook: Yes. Mr Randall: Yes. Senator O'NEILL: When did you provide that advice? Ms Paul: It would have been sent to the secretariat. It is just a transmittal of paper, presumably. Mr Randall: It is a paper. It is developed by the board and then goes through to secretaries as a first step, and

it has been distributed through the Education Council secretariat. Senator O'NEILL: Was it developed by your board? Mr Randall: By us, and our board has approved it, yes. Senator O'NEILL: Your board has some pretty eminent people on it, doesn't it? Mr Randall: Yes—I think so! Senator O'NEILL: They have served ACARA very well in terms of keeping abreast of national curriculum

developments over many years, from what I can recall. What is the nature of that paper? Is it a public document? Mr Randall: It is advice to the council, so it is council-in-confidence. Senator O'NEILL: Will the council make it available, do you believe? Ms Paul: It is up to the council. They normally do not release their papers. They nominally release a

communique. Senator O'NEILL: That is a summary of their deliberations? Ms Paul: Of the resolutions of their meeting—that is right. Senator O'NEILL: They release that afterwards but not a detailed analysis of ACARA's view of the elements

of the curriculum. Ms Paul: But what ministers will do with this paper, of course, is at this stage entirely unknown.



Senator O'NEILL: In your preparation of that paper, what did you take into account? I know that we had the curriculum review, the Wiltshire-Donnelly review, which we had significant discussion about in our last meeting. What else did you take into account, or was that it?

Mr Randall: I think Mr Cook said a moment ago there was the paper that went to council. We are certainly aware of the Wiltshire-Donnelly report. I would also point out that we had some advice. We have been looking at the curriculum. We have had sources of feedback. So the four themes were what we were asked to respond to. For example, responding to the crowded curriculum was one that has come up through the review. It is one that we are aware of and our own board has discussed it. So we have taken account of a range of sources, and then there is the experience and expertise of the board itself in providing advice to the council. So there is a wide range focusing on the themes the council asked us to provide advice on.

Senator O'NEILL: Could you provide us with an outline of the reports, assessments and research that underpinned the report that you are providing—where you got your information?

Mr Randall: I expect I can give you a summary, an outline of that, yes. Senator O'NEILL: There were so many submissions that had very different evidence within them. There

were hundreds of submissions that did not inform the Wiltshire-Donnelly review. If you went to them, I am wondering what other sources there were. I would really be interested to see how broadly you went, because I think your sources could be a lot broader than the Wiltshire-Donnelly review—that is for sure. How many of the government's curriculum review recommendations is ACARA not further investigating?

Mr Randall: We have been asked to provide advice in relation to the four themes, and that is the nature of the advice. So we are responding to those four themes that I have just mentioned.

Senator O'NEILL: How many recommendations were there? Mr Randall: Thirty, I recall. Senator O'NEILL: There were 30 recommendations and you are following up on four themes. Mr Randall: No, that is not what I said. The council paper that led to the decision for us to provide advice

said, 'Give us advice on four themes.' Mr Cook referred to the five themes of the federal government's initial response, so I want to acknowledge the fifth one, which was in relation to governance. But there are those four themes that I have referred to, and that is how we have framed our advice.

Ms Paul: They cover multiple recommendations, obviously. So there is not a direct one-to-one relationship between a recommendation and a theme. I think that is the point that Mr Randall is making, in part.

Senator O'NEILL: Of the 30 recommendations from ACARA, which ones are you taking on board and making adjustments to your work based on?

Mr Randall: I am happy to come back to you. I understand your question. That has not been the focus of our work. As the secretary said, there is a relationship there. I am happy to provide some advice to you about that relationship. Our focus has been on the issue of the crowded curriculum. There are a number of recommendations in there, so we could do that association, but the focus has been on those four themes. That is what the board has talked about, that is what the board was asked to do, that is the focus of the board's discussion and that has framed the advice to the council.

Senator O'NEILL: You would have to say that there was not an overwhelmingly warm reception to curriculum change at the state level based on the Wiltshire-Donnelly report.

Mr Randall: I would not necessarily make the assertion otherwise. Ms Paul: Indeed, all ministers decided to refer four of the Commonwealth's five themes to ACARA for

consideration. Senator Ryan: This was agreed at education council. Senator O'NEILL: I will go on to the next part. Review of ACARA was mentioned a little while ago. What is

the time line on that? I know it is to happen this year. Mr Randall: The department can talk about that quickly. Mr Cook: Senator, just to help you with that: 8 December is when the review was caused to begin, as required

under the act. Senator O'NEILL: So 8 December 2014 the review commenced? Mr Cook: That is right. Senator O'NEILL: Who is actually completing the review, and who determines that?



Mr Cook: Mr Grahame Cook, PSM. Senator O'NEILL: Who determines the person who undertakes the review? Mr Cook: The department does that. Senator O'NEILL: And how did you determine that, that it was Mr Grahame Cook who would do this job? Mr Cook: I think that was part of an RFQ we put out, or a request for quote. Senator O'NEILL: And did you have many respondents? Mr Cook: I would have to take that on notice, Senator—I am not sure; I am happy to take that on notice. Senator O'NEILL: Would you be able to indicate—if you can, on notice—the people who did express

interest and the criteria in which Mr Cook was determined the most suitable candidate? Mr Cook: Sure; happy to take that on notice. Senator O'NEILL: And the cost of undertaking that review. Mr Cook: Happy to do that as well. Just to answer the rest of your question, this is actually in the act itself:

the review must start six years after the act—which is 8 December 2014—and it must be completed within six months.

Senator O'NEILL: Do you believe that you will be able to bring it in on time? Mr Cook: Absolutely. Senator O'NEILL: And the terms of reference of that review? Mr Cook: The terms are actually in the act itself. Senator O'NEILL: The publication of the review—when do you expect that? Is it ahead of schedule, is it

going to be earlier than June? Mr Cook: Some of that would depend on the stakeholder and the availability of stakeholders to actually have

the consultation. I have no reason to believe it will be late, but it is within the six months requirement of the act—I would imagine it will take that long.

Senator O'NEILL: Is there a requirement in the act for the publication of that review? Mr Cook: It says: The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be laid before each House of Parliament within 15 sitting days after the Minister receives the report. That is what is required under the act. Senator O'NEILL: How does ACARA intend to contribute to the review? Mr Randall: The board chair, all of the current board members and I think former board members have all

participated in a meeting with Mr Cook. I have participated in an interview with him, so we have been invited to provide advice and comment on it. But, as I understand it, then on the basis of that, Mr Cook has been engaged by the department to prepare the report in the manner that Mr Cook has outlined.

Senator O'NEILL: So your consultation will be as requested by Mr Cook? Mr Randall: As he seeks information from us or seeks views—and as I said he has talked to a large number

of people, the board members, current and past—or if he wants some more information from us we will provide it.

Senator O'NEILL: So his work has well and truly commenced with you? Mr Randall: Mr Cook outlined the time line when he started, and I understand there has been a great number

of meetings that have occurred already. I do not know all of the people he is meeting with but I know I have met with him. I know various board members have met with him, so I think that is well underway.

Senator O'NEILL: And what sort of things is he interested in learning about? Mr Randall: The terms of reference are how it is all framed. My experience was I was invited to comment in

relation to those terms of reference, and then he asked questions, probed and dug down into points. There was a bit of discussion about alternatives and he asked my opinion on some matters—the challenge now will be for Mr Cook to draw all that together and provide the advice through to the department.

Senator O'NEILL: And did you have a similar experience to Dr Rabinowitz and Dr Lambert? Mr Randall: They have not been interviewed. Senator O'NEILL: So who is selected for interview? Is there a process around that?



Mr Cook: My understanding is that there are approximately 40 to 50 different stakeholder groups. As Dr Randall said, it will be ACARA; it is up to Dr Randall to decide who within ACARA—he is the CEO—will be part of that interview process. I understand it will be all board members, all past board members, all state and territory departments of education, all non-government organisations, I imagine it would be parent associations—it would be the normal education stakeholder group that we would consult with, who would be affected by curriculum matters.

Senator O'NEILL: I am not familiar with Mr Cook. Ms Paul: Mr Cook was a senior public servant in the Australian Public Service He was a deputy secretary in

two departments that I have been secretary of: the Department of Education, Science and Training; and the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations.

Senator O'NEILL: Thank you. He is undertaking this work as a consultant? Ms Paul: He retired several years ago from the Public Service—he retired out of my department; it would

have been Education, Employment and Workplace Relations at the time—and since that time I understand he has undertaken a range of consulting and other work.

Senator O'NEILL: Thank you very much. Those are my questions for ACARA. CHAIR: Are there any more questions for ACARA? Senator WRIGHT: Can I take you to a report in the Daily Telegraph about an increase in formal withdrawals

across all age groups? Senator Ryan: Do you have copies of that? Senator WRIGHT: No, I do not, I am sorry. CHAIR: Have you got the date and maybe the secretariat can— Senator WRIGHT: I do not even have the date. I can try and get that for you. That would be helpful. Senator Ryan: The only thing I will say is this: if officials cannot see the article, you can ask them questions,

but we have to put on the record that without seeing the context of the article I do not it want it to be attributed as a response to the article. It is a response to your question.

Senator WRIGHT: Okay. I have some specific questions about the data that I presume ACARA will have. I appreciate that it would have been helpful; I did not think of that. Because ACARA will have data about withdrawal rates from the NAPLAN test, I am interested in knowing if the change in withdrawal rates has been higher in any particular state or states.

Mr Randall: I think we have got data in front of us at the national level. If you are asking for us to provide you a state-by-state breakdown, I would take that on notice.

Senator WRIGHT: Thank you. Do you know, off the top of your head, whether it was higher in some states than others?

Dr Rabinowitz: Yes, it has been higher in some states than others. Senator WRIGHT: Can you tell us which states it was higher in—not necessarily the numbers? Do you

know? Dr Rabinowitz: Certainly in the Northern Territory and in at least one other state, which I do not recall. I will

submit that as Mr Randall has suggested. Senator WRIGHT: Thank you. I understand that—and correct me if I am wrong—an extra 1,000 students in

each of the tested year levels formally withdrew in 2014 compared to 2013. Is that figure right? Do you have the national figures there?

Dr Rabinowitz: The rate went up from less than two per cent to slightly over two per cent. One per cent is about 2,000 students, so it is about half of that. So you are in the ballpark.

Senator WRIGHT: When you say 'in the ballpark'— Dr Rabinowitz: I do not have the exact number but that sounds about right. Senator WRIGHT: You do not have that figure with you? Dr Rabinowitz: Not with me, no. Senator WRIGHT: Was that in each of the tested year levels? Dr Rabinowitz: It was highest in year 3, second-highest in year 9 and years 5 and 7 were relatively low

compared to those two.



Senator WRIGHT: So approximately 1,000 students. That was correct for years 3 and 9—around that figure? Percentages do not necessarily mean much. I am just trying to imagine how many students that is.

Dr Rabinowitz: I will get you those numbers. Senator WRIGHT: The 1,000, though—that less than two per cent I think you said—was that— Dr Rabinowitz: The difference from last year to this year at year 9 was 1.7 per cent and it then became 2.3

per cent, so it is about a half a percentage point. Senator WRIGHT: An increase from 1.7 to 2.3 per cent in year 9. Is that what you are saying? Dr Rabinowitz: Yes, that is the number now. Senator WRIGHT: Thank you. That is year 9. Do you have the figures for years 3, 5 and 7? Dr Rabinowitz: Yes. In year 3 it was 2.3 per cent up to 2.7 per cent. That, as I said, was the highest. In year 5

it was 1.8 per cent up to 2.1 per cent, and in year 7 it was 1.3 per cent up to 1.6 per cent. One per cent would be about 2,500 kids, so half of that is about the 1,000 that you are talking about.

Senator WRIGHT: I am just trying to do the maths in my head. In year 3, this year it was 2.7 per cent of students who withdrew. One per cent is about 2,500 kids; is that right?

Dr Rabinowitz: One per cent would be about 2,500 students. Senator WRIGHT: So 2.7 per cent would be more than double that, would it not? Senator WRIGHT: If 1 per cent is about— Dr Rabinowitz: It is about 7,000 kids. Senator WRIGHT: Yes, in year 3. Dr Rabinowitz: That is not the increase; that is the total. Senator WRIGHT: No, that is the total. The increase is 0.4 per cent in year 3, is it not? Dr Rabinowitz: Across all four year levels. Senator WRIGHT: I understand what you are saying; I am just wanting to be clear on that. So, it is about

7,000 children being withdrawn in year 3, and a little less than that in year 9. Dr Rabinowitz: Yes. Senator WRIGHT: So between 6,000 and 7,000, I guess. Dr Rabinowitz: That is about right, yes. Senator WRIGHT: This is testing my maths! So, about 5,000 in year 5, and less than that in year 7. Thank

you for that—just so we get a sense of the numbers of children who are being withdrawn from the tests. Dr Rabinowitz: Across all year levels it would be about 23,000 students. Senator WRIGHT: The overall information that I am checking shows that there has been an increase across

the board but more in some year levels than in others. Dr Rabinowitz: Yes. Senator WRIGHT: What do you attribute the growing withdrawal rate to? Mr Randall: There are a range of reasons. I guess some of it is because there has been a bit more increased

awareness and publicity about withdrawing. There has certainly been some increased attention about participation in NAPLAN, so I would imagine they are there the causes. What I would do is just reinforce the points that we have expressed. We are still talking about a million students participating across the four years. Our view is that any increase in withdrawals is of concern to us, because we believe, therefore, the teachers and the parents are not getting the valuable information that comes out of NAPLAN. But the answer to your question was: increased awareness and some of the publicity that is around at the moment.

Senator WRIGHT: The increased awareness about the rights of parents to withdraw their children? Mr Randall: I think so. I think there is more engagement as people— Senator WRIGHT: So that is what you mean about awareness? Mr Randall: Yes, I think so. Senator WRIGHT: What do you mean by 'publicity'? Mr Randall: I am going to say the stories that go around on the media about it, because, again, around the

time of NAPLAN, we hear more about, if you like, the concerns or issues than all the things that go smoothly and the positive engagement with it. So that is what I mean: what we have read in the press.



Senator WRIGHT: Do you think that to some extent some parents who are becoming more aware of their right to withdraw their children are actually responding to their own experiences, as opposed to stories that they are hearing from others?

Mr Randall: Undoubtedly that would be there as well. But if you looked at the year 3 one—it depends. I cannot break that down. Your example would be: if there are some year 3 withdrawals, it is because they have had older children go through it. Some of those year 3s will have parents who are coming to it for the first time. I think it is broadly that combination of those two things.

Senator WRIGHT: Yes, that very likely, but that may also be a response to the way the schools are handling or working towards a NAPLAN test. I guess you are saying that there are all sorts of reasons.

Mr Randall: There is a whole range. Senator WRIGHT: I know ACARA is on the record as saying that the test is about how an individual student

is doing compared with the last time they set the tests, but NAPLAN tests are being used for much more than that. Do you agree with that?

Mr Randall: I hear some cases for it. The NAPLAN tests were designed to give some information that is available at the individual, school, state, and national level for us to see how we are going in these fundamentally important areas. The difference between NAPLAN and other tests is that NAPLAN does give us that national comparison. It gives us that ability to look that whole picture. Mums and dads get a report sent home to see how their son or daughter is going and how that compares to others. I do not think there is any question in terms of the research about the value of that comparison base. So I think it is being used to help identify individual kids' needs. It is being used for school planning and other reasons. People will then say—and I am happy to come back to your question in a moment—it is used for other reasons. And often, when I say, 'What are those other reasons that are causing the concern?' I hear some cases, as we have talked about here before. I have said when we have been here before: if people have concern about how it is being used, let us know and we will do what we can. If we think it is an inappropriate use, we will do what we can to follow it up.

Senator WRIGHT: I certainly know that you have said that and you have welcomed that. I suppose the fact of increasing withdrawals might be another way of sensing that parents have a problem with it and they are voting with their feet, in a way.

Mr Randall: Sure. And what we will do, as we have done before—and we will do it again this year—is continue to provide information about the intention and the intended use and the value that we clearly see, because there are a great many stories, cases, of individual mums and dads with individual students, schools, departments and others using this information, so we will continue to promote them as meeting the intended purpose of this assessment program.

Senator WRIGHT: Do you agree that there is a feeling and a concern from some, and a perception, that NAPLAN is operating as a testing regime rather than an assessment regime?

Mr Randall: Again, I could say yes, where you qualified it with 'some'. Also, on testing and assessment, it is a matter of me understanding what you mean when you draw that difference. If I infer into that that the assessment is the positive thing, and that is where we are using the information to drive teaching and learning, that is what we want to use it for. I think absolutely, without a shadow of a doubt, that that is what the great majority of it is being used for. There are some cases where it is a test—again, I am attributing meaning to what you said—which will not be. It will almost be where it is a test and they just do it and then they do not use the information and the like. That goes to that point about wanting to reinforce the purpose of the program and share where we see it is making a difference, because, as I have said here previously, there is absolutely no doubt about the individual cases, the students, classes and schools, where they have used this data to bring about change which has led to improvement in kids' learning. That is what this is about.

Senator WRIGHT: Thank you. Dr Rabinowitz: Senator, may I add to that? Senator WRIGHT: Yes. Dr Rabinowitz: We had a wonderful opportunity to share which I am seeing many schools taking advantage

of. That is the tracking of the first cohort of students that started in 2008 as year 3 NAPLAN students and now are year 9 NAPLAN students, seeing the progress of students, seeing schools go from cohort to cohort and seeing how well they are improving, addressing the needs of individual students and the entire student population. So I think that is focusing on the value of having these comparable national data—no student has any high stakes attached to that, as we designed the test—so being able to track that progress and look at those populations. Next



year we will have the second cohort. How does that change? Having that annual snapshot and then being able to track across and within groups is a remarkable thing that we have.

Senator WRIGHT: That might go some way to answering my next question, so thank you for that. I acknowledge that this is an issue we have discussed many, many times across the estimates table. Each time, or often, there has been a warning from ACARA that schools should not be conducting boot camps or cramming sessions. But I guess the fact that we are still having this discussion, and the fact of the withdrawal rates going up and so on, shows that it is still a live issue. You have already indicated in one part of your answer, I think, what can be done to address community concern, these concerns that people and parents have. You have just given an example of showing the positive use of the assessment regime. What other things can be done?

Mr Randall: I was asked earlier about how the move to NAPLAN online is going. In working with states and territories to continue to drive that, communication is a key part of it. We would acknowledge the opportunity to improve the program also in various ways. I would cite two examples. When we move online, in the time lines we talked about a moment ago, the assessment is going to be much better because, instead of everyone doing one test, with the challenges that that brings some students who are, if you like, the lower achievers—they get into the current 'one test fits all'; they get through a few items; and then maybe they do not find it as engaging. On your point about testing versus assessment, the design that we have got—the work that Stanley is leading within ACARA—that we are working with states and territories on, the tailored test design, means that we will be able, with those young people, to drill down and, we think, engage them.

Senator O'Neill talked to me earlier about feedback. When I have been out and others have been out to see young people do online assessment, the sample assessment, they are much more engaged because it is actually a medium that they are more used to, so we are improving it. On the tailored test approach, even this year we have sought to make another change around writing. Last year we decided not to declare the writing because, consistent with our message, it is not a matter of trying to second-guess the assessment; teach them the curriculum. This year, instead of one writing prompt, which has been the pattern for a number of years, as we have looked at it—and we continue to do it—we have said that, instead of one prompt for 3, 5, 7 and 9, we will have a prompt for years 3 and 5 students, a more primary-age prompt, and then for years 7 and 9 students a secondary-age prompt. You do not do rapid change all the time, but it is part of a continual improvement program that we have in train to pick that up. So I think it is two things. It is reinforcing the message about the program but also the continual improvement of the program.

Senator Ryan: Can I add that ACARA have undertaken a lot of work in this regard over many years, and we have just heard Mr Randall outline more recent work, but the truth is that there are some people who will not be convinced. There are some people who misrepresent what NAPLAN is. It is not high-stakes testing, as we have heard; it is a diagnostic tool. And, quite frankly, there are some people who do not vaccinate their kids despite the evidence being overwhelming. So I think we have to accept that ACARA have a very comprehensive plan to put people's fears at ease, but there are also the occasional irresponsible voices who try and whip up fear, and there are some people who may have an ideological view against it.

Senator WRIGHT: It is interesting that you talk about 'irresponsible voices'. Isn't the proof of the pudding in the eating, and isn't it actually how it is used to market certain schools? Isn't it in fact, arguably, in some cases, educators themselves who are using it and creating the perception that it is a valid test; it is a way of measuring the effectiveness of a teacher or the effectiveness of a school? That is happening too, isn't it? It is not just parents getting hysterical.

Senator Ryan: I did not use that term at all, Senator Wright. I just want to make that clear. Senator WRIGHT: No. Senator Ryan: The point I am making is that— Senator WRIGHT: 'Irresponsible voices'—who are they? Senator Ryan: I am making an irresponsible voices claim because, despite the ongoing efforts of ACARA,

there are occasionally—I read—comments about people accusing it of being high-stakes testing and the constant claims that the tests can be misrepresented. Well, I can misrepresent just about any fact or statistic that is presented; any of us can. The point I am making is: let us give them credit for the work they are doing. But, for example, just because certain neighbourhoods in Melbourne have vaccination rates that are dropping does not mean that the work that our people who support vaccination are doing, with all the evidence, is somehow wrong, because people can make wrong decisions and there are people who whip up fear or misrepresent something. There are people who are ideologically opposed to NAPLAN in principle. Fine, parents have a right, but let us not judge the whole program, and the success of this tool that is being used by the overwhelming majority to improve



education in core skills, because there are some people, a small number, who have an issue with it or a small number who misrepresent it. That is the point I am making.

Senator WRIGHT: I am certainly not wanting you to imply that that is what I feel. My concern is: to what extent can we look at the causes of the concern? In some cases, it is clear that the NAPLAN test is being used not by parents but by educators, by schools or by marketers as a shorthand way of judging the value or the worth of the particular school. Are they some of the 'irresponsible voices' that you are talking about there?

Senator Ryan: Do you know what? It is not the role of us, me here or you there, to seek windows into people's souls and judge why they choose a particular school for their child. Our job, in my view, is to ensure that they have information and that they have an element of choice.

Senator WRIGHT: Absolutely, I have no— Senator Ryan: My point is that we cannot seek windows into why people are saying things or why people are

doing things. My point is solely that, just because people are upset, it does not mean that everything that is humanly possible is not being done to ensure that NAPLAN is properly represented and used. Some people misrepresent it—like occasionally, Senator Wright, some people might misrepresent your and my comments.

Senator WRIGHT: Would you agree, Senator Ryan, that there are policy settings for which governments are responsible which can facilitate misrepresentation of what a test like NAPLAN sets? For instance, the fact that it can be used as a way to rank schools means that it is easier for parents who are, if you like, misled into thinking that it is a silver bullet, that it is a particularly reliable way of judging the efficacy of a particular school. Those policy settings are something for which the government is responsible. My point of asking these questions is: if it is an important assessment tool and people are withdrawing—and that is incontrovertible because we have heard that evidence today—then there is an issue that needs to be dealt with. Suggesting that maybe those parents who are withdrawing are the irresponsible voices, or that other people who are talking about that are, is not helpful. If you are looking at facilitating the uptake of the assessment, wouldn't it be also useful to look at the policy settings which lead into the perception that it is a one-size-fits-all test?

Senator Ryan: The point I am making, Senator Wright—that is not what I was saying—is that one can be making every possible human effort, which I think is being undertaken. The My School website, when I have used it and looked at schools in my neighbourhood because I have a young son, does not bring up what are commonly referred to as 'league tables'. But, at the same time, if someone wanted to go to the trouble with a pen and paper and write down scores for different schools, the only way of stopping them doing that is to not have the information out there.

We as a community—and the other major party in politics supports this as well—have made the point that we think parents should have information. It is also made clear on that website and in every communication that I have seen that it is not to be a rank of schools; it is not to be perceived that way; it should not be represented that way. Indeed, the way the data is presented makes it almost impossible to do that unless you are really dedicated to it and do it manually. You could not do it by a web crawler, I understand. The technology prohibits that.

So the point I am making—you are right, Senator Wright; I appreciate that your concern is genuine—is that we may have slightly different perspectives on some of these issues, but, just because people are pulling out, it does not necessarily mean ACARA are not doing everything possible. I use the vaccination example as one that I feel very strongly about only because there is no question about the evidence of that, yet we do see in some of our suburbs, in the wealthier parts of our cities, that vaccination rates are going down. Now, that is not a reflection on the good work of local councils, doctors and maternal nurses.

Senator WRIGHT: No, and I am not— Senator Ryan: The point being— Senator WRIGHT: I am not sure why you are being so defensive. I am not actually suggesting that

ACARA— Senator Ryan: I am not being defensive. I am simply saying that— Senator WRIGHT: are at fault as such. Senator Ryan: No. Senator WRIGHT: I am just saying: what are the factors? What can be done about it? What is it about the

public perception, and do we take the public perception seriously and not just dismiss it? Senator Ryan: I think they outlined that they do.



Senator WRIGHT: I have heard their evidence, and I have another question for them, if I can ask that. That is really, I suppose: if a couple of per cent of students choose not to sit the test, is that such a big concern? Does it really threaten the integrity of the results?

Mr Randall: It does not threaten the integrity of the results. But, as we have said, we would be disappointed at those parents, those mums and dads. At national level it does not. If it were down at a school level or something, it might, but again we cannot necessarily drill down to that. Our concern would be—and, again, we have gone through the logic here before—that literacy and numeracy are fundamentally important. Schools do a fantastic job of doing it. What NAPLAN does is provide us with that common assessment across the board and the national reference point, and it is really important in education to be able to compare the local to some external to make sure that you are in the ballpark, so to speak, exceeding or whatever. NAPLAN does that.

As I have now read, Dr Rabinowitz was interviewed there, and, as he said, we are disappointed with that withdrawal. It is not because it is threatening the integrity but because we think that those parents, those mums and dads, and those young people are missing out, and that is because we believe in all the resources we put into it. But we also know enough examples—we know enough of these; we have read about them in the paper—where bringing home the NAPLAN tests has caused mum and dad to go and talk to the school and has created that conversation, fuelled that conversation. As a result of that, something has changed, and it has made a significant turnaround for those young people. I do not have them all physically in front of me, but I have heard enough of those. So it is not the integrity of the assessment, not at these rates, but at a school level it might be. But fundamentally the concern is about the access and the use of what we believe is important information. If I can just continue a bit more, where I come back to is that we are going to improve the quality of that information as we improve the assessment over the next few years, so it will be even richer than it currently is.

Senator WRIGHT: If I can turn to just one question on MySchool: I understand that the newest version of the MySchool site will go live on 5 March.

Mr Randall: My public statements are early March, mainly because the board has not agreed to that. Senator WRIGHT: So you are neither denying nor confirming that? Mr Randall: Let me step back. That is our target date. We are not broadcasting that publicly. That is the one

that we are working towards, but there have to be a few decisions taken by the board yet to release it. Senator WRIGHT: Will the updated version of MySchool look significantly different or have any significant

changes to the features? Mr Randall: No. Senator WRIGHT: I understand that ACARA commissioned a review of the MySchool website. What did

you find from that review, and how will you be acting on it? Mr Randall: I would not couch it as a review. As part of our ongoing work we sought a evaluation. We

commissioned some work, which was interviewing parents and other stakeholders around that. That is giving us some feedback. One, it reinforced the point that I just made about the importance of parents and the like—they appreciate information. We are using that to guide some work and, in fact, as I look ahead—and I answered some questions earlier on about the next four-year plan—we will use that sort of information to inform the advice that we will bring through to the Education Council ministers about where MySchool could continue to evolve and build from its current base.

Senator WRIGHT: Will there be any additional information on the new site—different attributes of a school? Mr Randall: That is the discussion that is going on. I would not leap to that yet for two reasons. One, we have

not even had the ongoing discussion. I have to engage the board on that and the like. Then we have to go through the process of taking it through the Education Council—a process that you are familiar with. At the moment, because we have had MySchool for a number of years now and people are using it in a whole bunch of very positive ways and ask questions like where you are going—yes, there are some ways where people would like some additional features, but it is too soon for me to say, 'Here's what they might be.'

Senator WRIGHT: So in terms of the new version, there are no significant changes then? Mr Randall: In relation to the version that is there, we did update MySchool last December, where we added

some attendance data. MySchool will now have some school attendance data on it twice a year. It had it once a year, but as a result of the Education Council that will now be updated twice a year. We had the first release of that information last December. What you will see in early March is that that information is still there; but you will see later this year that we will update the attendance data.

Dr Rabinowitz: It is also broken down by Indigenous and non-Indigenous.



Mr Randall: That is it, because it gives a bit more information about the participation and attendance of young Indigenous and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students.

Senator WRIGHT: So is the new version that may be on 5 March just a look and feel and colour sort of thing? What changes will there be?

Mr Randall: There are none. That was my earlier answer. Senator WRIGHT: I thought that, but I was just wondering if there is any further— Ms Paul: Just be clear, the request through education ministers for ACARA to get school attendance updated

twice a year originated in COAG. Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership

[15:24] CHAIR: I welcome officers from AITSL. Do you have an opening statement? Ms Evans: No. We can move straight into questions. Senator O'NEILL: I have a couple of questions to clean up some uncertainty there might be in the public

around the nature of the literacy and numeracy assessment of teachers upon graduation prior to securing work. There was a recommendation in the TEMAG report that students need to undergo this literacy and numeracy test. Could you explain what the current status of that reality is. I am pretty sure, from my experience and understanding of the field, that it is already in place.

Ms Paul: No. Since last time we spoke, the field trialling around the literacy and numeracy test has been completed. There were approximately 1,300 teacher training students who completed that test.

Senator O'NEILL: When did that trial— Ms Evans: That trial took place right across Australia. Those students were taken from universities right

across Australia. The trialling was about testing the validity of the item. That has been completed. As recently as last week, a benchmarking exercise was undertaken to identify the cut score. If you remember, the purpose of the literacy and numeracy test is to test that students can achieve in the top 30 per cent of the population for personal literacy and numeracy. That benchmarking exercise has been completed and we are now in the process of refining that. ACER are doing that. We have contracted them to do that work. They are now in the process of refining that benchmark and developing a technical report to go with that.

Senator O'NEILL: Can I just go to the timing of this. There has been a consideration of this in the public for some period of time before TEMAG's report. So what was the timing on this?

Ms Evans: We were asked to deliver that test and the benchmark by the end of February, and we expect to be able to do that.

Senator O'NEILL: When were you asked to commence this? When did this work actually commence? Ms Evans: Under the previous government. Senator O'NEILL: When did that happen? When under the previous government were you asked to do this

work? Mr Misson: The instruction came in a letter from then Minister Garrett that is dated 1 May 2013. Senator O'NEILL: That is quite some time ago. You undertook that process that you have just outlined to the

committee. Ms Evans: Yes. Senator O'NEILL: So this work had been in train for some period of time prior to the recent announcement

by the minister. Ms Evans: That is correct. It is quite a complex process to develop the test items and trial those and then go

out to a major trial and then refine the benchmark. Under the original instruction, we were required to have this work delivered by the end of February. We believe we will be able to make that deadline.

Senator O'NEILL: The minister answered a question in parliament on 23 February this year by saying: They will have to introduce a literacy and numeracy test for undergraduates which they must pass before they are able to graduate from a teaching institution, before they can get licensed. So this was nothing new? This was something set in train by Minister Garrett?



Mr Cook: There was never a decision to implement. The decision of the previous government was about beginning some work. I do not believe Minister Pyne is totally correct in saying that this will now be a requirement. It will go into the standards. It does not currently exist in the standards.

Ms Paul: It was not made a requirement before. Mr Cook: You do not have to do it now. Mr Pyne has said that universities will have to do it, so it will

become part of the revised standards. Senator KIM CARR: Is the Commonwealth responsible for teacher registration? Mr Cook: Teacher registration is a state and territory responsibility. Senator KIM CARR: Then how can the minister require— Mr Cook: Because that is part of the national standards that the states and territories agreed to. So states and

territories will be part of this process of agreeing. Senator KIM CARR: Do they have to agree individually through COAG? What is the process? Mr Cook: It is through the Education Council, which is always the case. Senator KIM CARR: Will that be a condition of funding? Mr Cook: That is a decision for government. I am not aware— Senator KIM CARR: I am just wondering what the enforcement mechanism is. Ms Paul: As Mr Cook said, the Education Council or its equivalent has always set standards for— Senator KIM CARR: So there will be a new test for all graduates. Is it graduates or pre-graduates? Mr Cook: It is before they graduate. Senator KIM CARR: So to graduate— Mr Cook: They need to have passed. Senator KIM CARR: they need to have passed this particular test? Mr Cook: Correct. Senator KIM CARR: What is the enforcement mechanism? Mr Cook: The enforcement mechanism is through the accreditation authorities at a state and territory level.

That is based on the national accreditation standards which all states and territories agree to. Senator KIM CARR: What date will this be applicable from? Mr Cook: 2016. Senator O'NEILL: When was it scheduled to start? Ms Evans: Our obligation has always been to provide the test and the benchmark to the Commonwealth

department. The Commonwealth department are taking responsibility for working through the implementation of the test.

Senator O'NEILL: But you have been working towards the 2016 goal for some period of time. Ms Evans: We have been working towards the requirements to deliver the test to the Commonwealth

department by the end of February 2015. Senator O'NEILL: How many students were involved in the trial? Ms Evans: Approximately 1,300. Senator O'NEILL: Yes, that is what I thought you said. How many teaching institutions were engaged? Ms Evans: There were a range of teaching institutions. One of the things we have done under the ethics of the

test trial is protect the names of the students and the names of institutions. But a range of institutions have been involved right across Australia.

Senator O'NEILL: Was any information about this trial and the progress you were making in developing it shared with TEMAG in their consultation?

Ms Evans: TEMAG was certainly aware that the trialling and development of this test was in place, yes. Senator O'NEILL: You shared that information with them in the course of their inquiry? Ms Evans: We did. Senator O'NEILL: In what form and when did you do that?



Ms Evans: AITSL had in place a consultative committee with Universities Australia and with the deans of education. Professor Craven was the chair of that consultative committee along with the chair of the AITSL board at the time. Professor Craven was certainly aware of that process. During our consultations with TEMAG the development of the test was made known.

Senator O'NEILL: Is anything going to be different now that TEMAG have delivered their report? Do you think that that will change the work you are doing or the implementation of that?

Ms Evans: The requirements around the implementation of the test were not clear when we were asked to develop the test. Our responsibility was simply to develop the test. TEMAG has made quite clear now what the expectation is associated with the test. The Commonwealth department will work with states and territories, regulators and providers through the mechanisms of that implementation.

CHAIR: We will now break for afternoon tea. Proceedings suspended from 15:33 to 15:49

CHAIR: Thank you everyone. Senator O'Neill. Senator O'NEILL: We established with the proposed testing of students, who are approaching the point of

graduation, that the development of a test to ascertain literacy and numeracy capacity was set in train by the former government, indeed, the former Minister Garrett, and that work has been underway for some period of time by AITSL in doing that. We also determined that you had provided input to TEMAG, and I was up to the point where I was going to ask you: how does the report reflect your input? How, in your view, does their report reflect your input?

Ms Evans: Generally or in relation to the test? Senator O'NEILL: Probably in relation to the test. We will stick to that. Ms Evans: We did not provide specific recommendations in relation to the test, but we made them aware that

we were involved in the testing and had done some work, but we did not provide specific advice in relation to a test.

Senator O'NEILL: Do you have samples of the test that you could make available to the committee? Mr Misson: The answer to that is: not yet, but we will shortly. It is just a case of going through the technical

process. We should have those available, to be safe, by the end of March. Senator Kim Carr interjecting— Mr Misson: The sample items that we make public will be those that we have chosen not to use in the live

testing, so that people cannot get an unfair advantage by looking at the sample items. Senator KIM CARR: You did say that you would have this finished by the end of February. Mr Misson: Yes. At that point we will have finalised items. Senator KIM CARR: Presumably it is after. Senator O'NEILL: When are we going to get it. Was it 6 March? Senator KIM CARR: Will you be able to provide us with it? Senator O'NEILL: By 17 April. Senator KIM CARR: You will have the answers by then, not just the test. Mr Misson: We might leave those for senators to figure out. Ms Evans: We are very happy to provide that as soon as they are available, and that would be within the

month. Senator O'NEILL: We would be interested in getting our hands on it as quickly as possible. I know that that

is the end date, but prior to that would probably be helpful. I notice that the achievement level of the test was to be set at the top 30 per cent of the overall population. Is that still the case or is it being revisited? What is the status of that?

Ms Evans: That is still the case. Senator O'NEILL: For the record, could you explain AITSL's involvement in the production of the TEMAG

report? How significant was your contribution to that? Ms Evans: Like all other stakeholders we were given an opportunity to meet with the TEMAG committee,

face to face, and provide them with a written submission. We were not privy to the recommendations of the report



before they were made, but we were kept abreast of the general thrust of that committee during the time of its deliberation.

Senator O'NEILL: You must be relieved that there was not a policy change? Ms Evans: We are very pleased to see the recommendations of the report. We believe the report emphasises

impact—impact of graduates, impact of evidence—in a way that builds on AITSL's work and introduces some new things, but absolutely builds on the work that AITSL had been doing.

Senator O'NEILL: So, you have not do a new mandate or anything as a result of TEMAG? Basically you are in conversation and advancing in the way you always were?

Ms Paul: Actually AITSL has quite a bit of a new mandate beyond just what we are talking about now. For the record I would not want it to be clear that the government's response actually asks AITSL to do a whole range of things not just in this regard. You may want AITSL to tell you about that, or we can, but we just need to be clear it is not just in this one area.

Senator O'NEILL: On the strength that, I might ask about the funding of the testing process moving forward. What is your funding allocation?

Ms Evans: We have core funding, and that has been made clear to us. What has also been made clear to us is that we will receive funding to assist with the implementation of the TEMAG recommendations. The quantum of that funding has not yet been determined, and will be determined, I understand, through the Commonwealth government's budget processes.

Senator O'NEILL: So, it will not be known until after May? Ms Evans: I understand that it will be done through the budget processes. The timing of that would be better

addressed to the department. Mr Cook: Just to be clear, ACER already has money set aside—I think it is about $2 million or $2.5

million—for AITSL for the TEMAG response. The government actually provided that last year. Senator O'NEILL: Can I just pull back from there and ask: how much was allocated to the teacher testing

which was already underway? Mr Cook: That would have been part of AITSL's existing budget, and Ms Evans can answer that. Ms Evans: We can tell you that. Senator KIM CARR: In the last budget was your funding reduced by close on $20 million? Mr Cook: No. That money was never received by AITSL. That was money that was allocated into future

budgets by the previous government, but same as ACARA, neither institution actually received that money into their budgets.

Ms Paul: It was activities, I seem to recall, which were no longer going to be undertaken and had not yet been paid to AITSL, as Mr Cook said. While the AITSL folk are looking up money and so on, if you look at the government's response, there have been many, many requests for AITSL to take on a number of things. It is really focused on AITSL as the pre-eminent teaching and school leadership standard setting body.

Senator KIM CARR: I will ask the officers. I have a note here that tells me that there was a budget item of total savings of $19.9 million: -2.7 in 2014-14; -5.6 in 2014-15; -6 in 2015-16; -3.5 in 2016-17; and -2.1 in 2017-18. Is that correct?

Ms Paul: They have been in the forward estimates but not paid to AITSL. Senator KIM CARR: So, for the 2013-14 budget, was your funding reduced by $2.7 million? Mr Cook: Senator, it would not have been because that money would never have been received by AITSL.

They could not reduce a budget that they never actually received money for. They were not actually asked for work to do in relation to that money either.

Ms Paul: It was reduced against forward estimates, but it was not money that had been received by AITSL. Senator KIM CARR: What to the officers say to that? Was the agency's funding reduced? Ms Evans: We did not receive funding that was then taken away. The funding was not reduced. The actual

money received by AITSL was not reduced. Mr Cook: Also AITSL was not asked to do any work as well. Ms Paul: Yes. They were not asked to do the work. Mr Cook: They now have been.



Ms Paul: Sure. Mr Cook was starting to say that AITSL has already received some money to respond to the TEMAG report, in particular, through the government asking, for example, AITSL to have a closer relationship with TEQSA, et cetera.

Senator KIM CARR: Minister Pyne announced a sum of money for this project. Ms Paul: For which project? Senator KIM CARR: This testing project. When he announced the response to TEMAG, the teaching report,

was there a small amount of money referred to in that statement? Mr Cook: The money for the work that AITSL was doing around the development of that test was already in

AITSL's budget, so there was no announcement because that money was already in their budget. In terms of future money for the future progress of the tests, as Miss Evans said, that is at a budget process and a decision for the government.

Senator KIM CARR: So the minister has not announced any additional money at this stage? Mr Cook: Again, the additional money was already in the budget. It was set aside. Senator KIM CARR: I am trying to establish whether or not any announcement has been made. Ms Paul: There has not been an announcement, but there was money set aside. Senator O'NEILL: Could I ask you to give me the amounts of money that were spent in the preparation of

the test since commencement? Ms Evans: That money that was allocated to the literacy and numeracy test was $655,000. That was allocated

in the 2013-14 financial year and we have spent— Mr Misson: That makes a final payment due to ACER, but that money is either spent or committed in the

current contract we have with ACER, so the expenditure— Senator O'NEILL: And your contract for the development of the test and implementation of it—you were

mentioning ACER; what is your relationship with ACER? Ms Evans: We have contracted ACER to develop the test and to provide advice and support around

developing the benchmark. Senator O'NEILL: The implementation of the test is to go ahead now. What cost do you believe—have you

provided any projections of the cost to the government? Ms Evans: No. Not clear advice to government around this. That now is a matter for government who are

taking on the responsibility for the implementation of the test—or the department, as opposed to government. Senator O'NEILL: Does the department have any projection of figures around the enactment of this

announcement? Mr Cook: [inaudible] advice we give to government as part of the budget process. Senator O'NEILL: Okay. And you are 100 per cent clear that there was no announcement of additional

funding when the teacher training announcement was made by the minister? Mr Cook: I cannot recall, unless you have something there. I honestly cannot recall. Senator KIM CARR: You are the ones with the information. Mr Cook: I am just saying I cannot recall. Senator O'NEILL: If you could find out if there was, and provide us with that information, that would be

pretty important. Ms Paul: Yes, sure. Senator KIM CARR: The test is selecting undergraduates who meet a criteria of having literacy and

numeracy skills in the top 70 per cent of the population, is that correct? Ms Evans: No, the top 30 per cent of the population. Senator KIM CARR: The top 30 per cent is what I meant to say. That does not particularly strike me as an

onerous task. Has there been any consideration, given that the New South Wales teaching service will not accept graduates, presumably, through admissions centres, without an ATAR of 70 per cent—that is, in the top 30 per cent of students, as distinct from population. Isn't the proposition that you are in the top 30 per cent of the population significantly below criteria of the top 30 per cent of university students?

Mr Cook: My understanding of that was that that was the standard set by the previous government.



Senator KIM CARR: It might well be. But I am just asking: has there been any consideration of the adequacy of that?

Mr Cook: Again, that was based on my understanding of international research. If you look at Singapore and Finland, it is the same sort of standard that was set at those countries as well.

Senator KIM CARR: That is the basis for it, is it? Mr Cook: That is my understanding; although, Ms Evans, I am sure, has further information. Ms Evans: We have done some quite comprehensive testing of whether it is a rigorous enough assessment.

Remember, this is a requirement for all teachers so that they have enough understanding and enough capacity in personal literacy and numeracy to carry out the rigours of teaching and get through their university course. This is not a standard we would be setting or expecting of somebody who was teaching maths or teaching English. This is a minimum.

Senator KIM CARR: Undergraduates. Ms Evans: Yes. There have been a range of processes—and I will ask Mr Misson to describe them because he

can describe them more exactly than I can—and we have been engaged in two or three different processes to test the adequacy of this as a benchmark.

Mr Misson: So the best way to get a handle on the top 30 per cent of the population is through population surveys. There is a major international survey called PIAAC, which is run in Australia among other places, and that allows you to benchmark the top 30 per cent of the population to what is called the Australian core skills framework, which is a measurement framework for literacy and numeracy. Then we got a group of experts—people from schools, principals primarily, who work with new graduate teachers, and teacher educators, who are working with them before they graduate—and we ran a process. It is a more elaborate process than this, but in this process we took test items—questions, basically—that are calibrated to that scale, and we asked those experts whether they thought a graduate should or should not be able to answer this question. They go through a moderated process and come to a consensus on where the level should be. The result was that that level was equivalent to the top 30 per cent of the population, so we do think that we have a calibration of that top 30 per cent to the literacy and numeracy demands of teaching. And that is pretty soundly based.

Senator KIM CARR: Mr Cook, is that how it is done internationally? Mr Cook: Singapore also sets itself at 30 per cent. I am not sure of the methodology as to how they reach that

30 per cent. I am sorry. Senator KIM CARR: Scandinavia? Mr Cook: Scandinavia—I think it was between 20 and 30 per cent as well. Again, I am not sure of their

methodology, as to why they came up with that percentage but it is consistent— Ms Paul: Finland not all of Scandinavia necessarily. Mr Cook: Yes, it is Finland we are talking about specifically. But we did look at the benchmarking, I think, as

part of the process of looking at what some of the high-performing countries were doing around initial teacher education and selection of teachers, and their courses as well.

Senator KIM CARR: And there is no intention to revisit those criteria? Mr Cook: That is in the standards at the moment. If that was to be revisited, then all education ministers

would have to have a view to review that standard. Senator KIM CARR: But it is not under consideration? Mr Cook: Not at this point, no. I do not believe so. Senator KIM CARR: How many graduates do we expect in 2016? How many people will actually have to sit

this test? Mr Misson: I cannot tell you exactly, but in 2012 there were 16,650 completions in initial teacher education,

so I think we can safely assume it will be in that order. Senator KIM CARR: Growth rate has grown a little higher since then, hasn't it? It might be significantly

higher than 16,000—is that the number you said? Mr Misson: 16,650. To predict the number in 2016 is probably a bit difficult but it would be that order of

magnitude. Mr Cook: It was about 18,000 in 2013. That is the latest dataset we have. Senator KIM CARR: That is what I would have thought.



Senator O'NEILL: Could I move on to a couple of questions around the accreditation of teacher courses. The accreditation of teacher courses is something that has been going on for quite some time.

Ms Evans: Since 2013 the national accreditation has been adopted by each state and territory. But you are correct; prior to that, particularly in Queensland, Victoria and New South Wales, there have been accreditation processes in place.

Senator O'NEILL: There seems to have been some considerable effort to try and create the sense that this is a brand new concept, that accrediting teacher education has somehow just arrived on the horizon. I guess I refer particularly to the announcement by the minister: 'We have announced that we will reaccredit all teaching institutions in Australia'. Could you take us through the process that has been in place and any changes that you can see as a result of this announcement?

Ms Evans: The TEMAG report has very clearly said that the accreditation processes in place are of themselves okay but they are not implemented nearly rigorously enough. And there is a real will I think amongst all stakeholders to see those strengthened. The current accreditation process consists of a panel that largely does a desktop analysis of course inputs, with some consideration of outputs. What we would see happening quickly and in terms of the strengthened process is a much greater focus: on output; on the quality of the graduate, the impact that the graduate is having on student learning; and the nature of each of the courses themselves. In order for universities to get full accreditation they would have to demonstrate that the course that they were conducting actually produced classroom-ready graduates. What we have in place currently is some of the policy guidelines and the hooks around that, but I think it is fair to say that that needs strengthening and clarifying, and it needs a focus on data and on outputs and impact.

Senator O'NEILL: The national accreditation standards commenced in 2013, didn't they? Ms Evans: Full implementation of the standards commenced in 2013. Senator O'NEILL: And prior to that? Ms Evans: The standards themselves I think were agreed in late 2011. Prior to that, there had been no national

agreement about the process. So what was occurring in each state and territory was different— including, in some states and territories, no real accreditation process at all.

Senator O'NEILL: The command-and-control model from Canberra is now in ascendency with regard to teacher accreditation.

Ms Paul: It is to try to lift the quality of teaching. This has been something which all governments have said is a high priority—

Senator O'NEILL: Clearly, it took until 2011 to actually get the agreement; that is a very significant thing. This is a project that had been underway for some period of time. It commenced under which minister? Who was the minister at the time, in 2011?

Ms Paul: What we were just talking about then is something new which the— Senator O'NEILL: Yes, but I am just trying to get the history of where we have been. The work in this area

started in 2011—getting agreement in the first place? Ms Evans: So in order to get nationally agreed accreditation, the work had been going on for some time, even

prior to the creation of AITSL. In 2011 when that was signed off—from my recollection, it was Julia Gillard who was the minister at that stage. The national accreditation process through the education council was then agreed and fully implemented across states and territories in 2013.

Senator O'NEILL: And when in 2013 did that occur? Ms Evans: At the beginning of 2013. Senator O'NEILL: February? Ms Evans: It is progressed. Mr Misson: Just to be clear, Senator, in some states and territories some accreditation took place under the

national system in 2012. Every accreditation that has taken place, since 1 January 2013 effectively, across the country has been under the national system, so that is how we are defining full implementation.

Senator O'NEILL: What is the number of programs that have been accredited in that period in accordance with the accreditation standards?

Mr Misson: 139. Senator KIM CARR: Total?



Mr Misson: Approximately 400 that are accredited. Senator KIM CARR: There are 400 courses are there? Teaching courses? Mr Misson: Yes. Senator KIM CARR: And 139 have been reaccredited? Mr Misson: Nationally accredited. Mr Cook: I do not believe any have failed, is that correct? Ms Evans: Mr Cook has raised a question about whether any have failed. The answer to that question is no.

But these courses probably fall into four categories. There are courses that go through the accreditation process and get through—they are well done; it is easy. There is a group of courses that require some iteration. There is another group of courses that take a long time to be accredited. And there is a final group that are withdrawn during the accreditation process. Under TEMAG, it is very clear that the standards for going through the accreditation process—the amount of time, the amount of iteration that takes place during that process—needs to be sharpened and tightened so that the standards are clearer and the expectation that they can deliver is much more explicit. That needs to be done so that this backwards and forwards and toing and froing is much reduced and the rigour is significantly greater.

Senator O'NEILL: So it is pretty clear that there was a continual improvement process underway, and that has just been more formalised in recent times but—

Ms Paul: No, I do not think that is what Ms Evans was saying. I think it is fair to say that TEMAG found that some of those approaches were not rigorous enough—I think that is what you were just saying—

Senator O'NEILL: Yes, and some of them were withdrawn during the process. Ms Paul: and that universities had implemented programs in quite a variety of ways, some terrific and some

really, really not. Just to be clear, TEMAG is recommending that, for example, universities be required to actually deliver evidence of and substantiate the effectiveness of their teaching practices, which is something they have not been required to do—

Senator O'NEILL: I understand, Ms Paul. It is an improvement on the process, but it is not the commencement of a new process.

Ms Paul: Well, this is— Senator O'NEILL: This is a process that is building. Ms Paul: and there are several pieces from TEMAG where, in the government's response, the government is

saying it will instruct AITSL to establish and publish the central requirements for practical experience; it will require AITSL to forge a closer relationship with TEQSA; it will ask AITSL to set clear expectations that assessment be continuous, based on the graduate level of the standards that we have been talking about; it will instruct AITSL to use the course accreditation arrangements to require universities to make sure that every new primary teacher graduates with a subject specialisation, which we have not talked about yet; and so on. Also, it has asked AITSL, through Professor Hattie, the chair, to establish a national focus on research into teacher education. They are just some of the new activities that AITSL will undertake, just to help you there.

Senator O'NEILL: Thank you. Senator KIM CARR: How many courses, of the 139, were withdrawn before they received re-accreditation? Ms Evans: We do not know the answer. It is not that I do not have it here; we do not know the answer to that

question. In preparation for the TEMAG work, we wanted to get a bit of a sense of this. The expectation under the current process is that panels work with the universities' providers to make sure that they are accredited. One of the significant changes, I think, under the new strengthened process, is that we will be much clearer about expectations, and therefore the universities will have to demonstrate capacity and impact much more explicitly. So there will not be an opportunity to iterate over and over again, till we get there.

Senator KIM CARR: My reading of the report suggested to me there was some dissatisfaction with the accreditation process.

Ms Evans: I think that is correct. I think the dissatisfaction with the accreditation process was focused primarily on the implementation. But, also, the TEMAG report has made it clear that there needs to be greater specificity and rigour in some of the standards themselves.

Senator KIM CARR: So how confident can we be in the 139 courses that have received national accreditation?



Ms Evans: I think it would be fair to say that they will fall over the predictable curve. Some will be fabulous and some will be pretty marginal. I think we can be confident, if they were accredited, that they get over the line. What AITSL would certainly want is that courses do more than just get over the line, that they are much more rigorous and much more able to demonstrate their impact.

Senator KIM CARR: So is it your intention to re-accredit all courses—that is, the full 400? Ms Evans: There has always been an expectation in place that, over time, courses would be re-accredited. One

of the things that we will need to work through with our stakeholders is the length of time that re-accreditation will take. It is pretty clear in the TEMAG report that the expectation is that the accreditation of courses be re-examined and done relatively quickly.

Senator KIM CARR: You have just told us that some the courses that have been accredited are 'marginal'. Is that correct?

Ms Evans: Yes. That is correct. Senator KIM CARR: How can you tolerate a situation where you have courses of that description, marginal,

that are not reassessed? Ms Evans: Senator, you have gone right to the heart of the problem. We do not want to tolerate courses that

are marginal. We want to have a much greater sense that the expectations of the course are much clearer, so we are clearer about what is marginal and what is not—and then, if something is not marginal, that there is a bit of a light-touch approach to it or, if something is marginal, that there is much greater rigour about that course being able to demonstrate its impact.

Senator KIM CARR: How long will it take to reaccredit the 400 courses that operate? Ms Evans: I do not know the answer to that until we work through with our stakeholders how that

reaccreditation process will occur and the resources that we will need to do that in terms of training. Senator O'NEILL: The original time line for the accreditation was through to 2023, wasn't it? Ms Evans: It was. I can give you a very clear answer to that. It is expected that all courses are reaccredited

within a five-year period. Senator KIM CARR: Five years from now? Ms Evans: Five years from when they were originally accredited. Senator KIM CARR: When were these 139 accredited? Mr Misson: Between 2012 and the end of last year; there would not be any this year. Senator KIM CARR: So it would be 2018, would it? Ms Evans: If we are adhering to the five-year time line it would be 2018. I think the expectation through the

TEMAG report is that we actually accelerate that reaccreditation process. Senator KIM CARR: There was nothing in the minister's statement that gave us specific reference to when

this was going to be done. Ms Paul: You get a sense of it in the government response, actually. As Ms Evans was saying, there is a sense

of AITSL requiring much more rigour, I suppose, on proving effectiveness by universities and faculties. Senator KIM CARR: Madam Secretary, I appreciate the sense of it, but I think we would probably need a

little more precision than that. Mr Cook: I understand that the minister said in his speech that he would expect the large majority of all the

recommendations in relation to the TEMAG report to be completed within the next two years. Senator KIM CARR: Two years? Mr Cook: That is right. Whether that is accreditation or whether it is all the processes that need to be put into

place; but a lot of the work that will lead to the reaccreditation process is to be completed within two years. Senator O'NEILL: I have just received a little bit of information about an announcement and I am just

looking for the amount. I have been led to believe there is a $3 million announcement of funding. Mr Cook: That would be, I would imagine, the existing funding in the AITSL budget. If the minister

announced that, that would have been money that was identified and put aside in the existing AITSL budget. Senator KIM CARR: So it is not new money? Mr Cook: It is not new as in a future budget; it is new as in it was anticipated, because we knew obviously

from last year that TEMAG would be happening. So it was put aside in the AITSL budget for this purpose.



Ms Paul: It has only now been formally attached to the TEMAG response. It was not possible, naturally, to do that until the government could see what was in the report.

Senator O'NEILL: I might be on the wrong thing, but it says, 'Finding $230 million of new money, extra money, for schooling'. There is some confusion here about new money and no money.

Ms Paul: $230 million? Senator O'NEILL: I cannot actually locate this number in here. If I can come back to that, that would be

good. I will probably have to ask a question on this, so I might have to come back a bit later on. Ms Paul: We have got program 2 to come. If you find it, we can try to take it then. Senator O'NEILL: Okay. Finally, teacher entry standards–I know that my colleague Senator Carr has made

some comments about that. Does AITSL have research about the impact of entrance scores for teacher institutions? Are you part of that conversation, as an independent body?

Ms Evans: I am sorry; can you repeat— Senator O'NEILL: Do you have a view about ATAR entry scores, and how has your research—I am

assuming you have done research on that—fed into the conversation? Ms Evans: It is very clear that people who are coming into teacher training need both an academic capacity—

we are certainly not moving away from that—and other skills, personal attributes, to be an effective teacher and to complete the teacher training program effectively. There is a range of ways to measure that. Our view is that ATAR is one way of measuring academic capacity. But fewer than 20 per cent of people who come into initial teacher education programs come in with an ATAR. It is just not a robust enough and/or broadly based enough measure.

Senator KIM CARR: You said 20 per cent. What is the evidence for 20 per cent coming in through ATAR? Ms Paul: It is just a straight number. That is the data collected from universities, I think, isn't it? Senator KIM CARR: What is the source of that data? Ms Paul: The universities themselves. Ms Evans: The universities themselves provide that data through a census process. Senator KIM CARR: Let's look at that. How many of those who come in direct to universities have an

ATAR score? It is not that they do not have an ATAR score. It is that only 20 per cent come in through university admission centres. Is that the case?

Ms Evans: Let's talk about— Senator Ryan: Sorry, can I seek some clarification here. To put an example to you, if someone was going in

as a postgraduate and they had done a three-year bachelor's degree they presumably would have an ATAR score. Are you asking for everyone who goes into a teaching degree, who is young enough, to have an ATAR score?

Senator KIM CARR: There are two issues. At what age do they enter? Melbourne University, for instance, has a postgraduate teaching qualification, an M Ed. Other institutions have direct entry for a teaching qualification—Catholic University, for instance. So they take 18 year olds into the teaching program, whereas Melbourne University tends to take people at 20 or 21.

Senator Ryan: Or older. Senator KIM CARR: It is a different age group. But they all have ATARs. Senator Ryan: Do you also include the 28 year old who might have done a Bachelor of Science and is going

into a Masters of Education qualification. Senator KIM CARR: They may have an ATAR still. Senator Ryan: So you are asking about any ATAR score they might have had since the year 2000? Senator KIM CARR: This whole debate is quite skewed. It is not accurately an accurate statement to say that

only 20 per cent of people enter the teaching program with an ATAR. Ms Paul: This is what we understand the evidence to be, and it is the same evidence between AITSL and us.

Twenty per cent is the percentage of people entering teaching training who enter on the basis of their ATAR. Eighty per cent enter on some other basis. They might be coming from work. They might be mature age. All of the things you would know. But that is the percentage who enter on the basis of an ATAR. That is what Ms Evans was suggesting.



Senator KIM CARR: I am saying to you that it is quite a misleading statistics, because it does not tell you whether or not people have an ATAR other than—it implies that you do not have an ATAR, which is not the case.

Ms Paul: But the debate is about what the basis should be to select— Senator KIM CARR: The method of entry. If it is through school leavers—year 12 students is one thing.

Postgraduate students entering into a Masters of Teaching, which is becoming increasingly common, is an entirely different thing.

Ms Paul: I think this percentage is for initial teacher training. It is actually quite a surprisingly low proportion—

Senator KIM CARR: They are two separate issues— Senator O'NEILL: A masters is still a [inaudible]. Senator KIM CARR: That is exactly right. There is a requirement now— Ms Paul: No, it is not. It is a postgraduate degree. Senator O'NEILL: Yes— Senator KIM CARR: It is an initial teacher training to get into a Masters of Teaching at Melbourne or at

Western Australia—and I think they still do it at Western Australia. To actually stand in front of a class and get a teacher placement, you require a degree for entry through Melbourne University.

Ms Paul: Yes. Senator KIM CARR: At other institutions you are commencing your degree. You are measuring different

things entirely. Ms Paul: I understand what you are saying. What we are trying to say is that, for the statistic we understand to

be the proportion of students from whatever backgrounds going into teacher training, only 20 per cent of them are selected on the basis of the ATAR.

Senator KIM CARR: That is directly from school? Ms Paul: No. Well, probably, but I am talking about the whole set of— Senator Ryan: It could be a year after year 12, if they took a gap year. Senator KIM CARR: Yes, but it is year 12 exists in reality. Ms Paul: Presumably. Senator KIM CARR: And the higher education statistics will reflect that. In terms of those entering with an

ATAR do you have any fix on the special consideration measures? Mr Cook: I do not believe we have. Ms Evans: No. Mr Cook: Which is why one of the recommendation of the TEMAG report was for that information to be

made public. So if you look at recommendation 11— Senator KIM CARR: I understand that. But does your agency have any indication of what—I am referring to

it as special consideration—additional scores are given for—Christ knows what it is called. Mr Cook: Bonus schemes or forced offers? Senator KIM CARR: Left-handedness, blue eyes—that sort of stuff. Mr Misson: In that case the answer is no. Senator KIM CARR: What is the maximum percentage of special consideration that is given to those ATAR

scores? Do you know that? Mr Misson: We do not know that. Someone somewhere in the department may, but we certainly have never

collected that— Senator KIM CARR: Do you know that, Mr Cook? Mr Cook: No. Ms Paul: No, that is why TEMAG has recommended— Mr Cook: TEMAG could not identify that, either, which is why they said to be much more transparent and

accountable to the public and governments around this it should actually be published by universities. Ms Paul: The recommendation says:



Recommendation 11: Higher education providers publish all information necessary to ensure transparent and justifiable selection processes for entry for initial teacher education programs, including details of Australian Tertiary Admission Rank bonus schemes, forced offers and number of offers below any published cut-off.

Senator KIM CARR: 'Bonus schemes', that is the term I am looking for. Do you have any statistics on raw ATAR scores for entry to teacher education courses? Raw ATAR scores.

Ms Paul: I do not think so. That is why TEMAG thought that was a big gap. Senator KIM CARR: Does anyone in the country have them that you are aware of. Ms Evans: Not that I am aware of. Senator KIM CARR: The institutions would. Ms Evans: Individual institutions would. Senator KIM CARR: But, Mr Cook, in the higher education statistics there is no-one who collects that? Mr Cook: I am not aware of it. Outcome 3 might be able to answer that better than I can. I understand part of

the concern was that TEMAG was told by a number of people they consulted with that they understood there were practices in universities about some of these bonus schemes.

Senator KIM CARR: Yes, quite considerable practices. Mr Cook: It no longer gives them the data they needed, so that is why I believe they went to recommendation

11. Senator KIM CARR: There is no-one within government I can talk to about what those bonus schemes are? Mr Cook: If anyone could it would be outcome 3. Ms Paul: Let's see if anyone here for higher education later on knows. Senator KIM CARR: Would TEQSA know? Ms Paul: I am not sure. It is worth asking. Otherwise we will take it on notice. TEMAG also obviously found

this a frustration. We will see if they found anything, too. Senator O'NEILL: I have a couple of question about principal standards that I might put on notice, and,

obviously, the interface between professional experience in schools, school placement and the theoretical practical interplay, which obviously is of great concern in the accreditation process and in the funding process. I have a number of more detailed questions around that and I will foreshadow that I would like to speak about that next time.

CHAIR: Thank you for your evidence. Australian Research Council

[16:33] CHAIR: Welcome, Professor Byrne, do you wish to make an opening statement? Prof. Byrne: No, I don't. Senator KIM CARR: At the Senate inquiry into the higher education bill and then at the last Estimates you

indicated that the higher education changes and the Future Fellowships program were linked. You said the minister had made it very clear that the higher education legislation was coupled to the Future Fellowships scheme and to the NCRIS scheme. That was on page 32. You said at the time you were just reporting a statement that Minister Pyne had made in parliament several days ago, which was on 8 October. I just want to clarify this. Mr Pyne's statement in parliament was late September. When was it that you actually became aware of the link between the higher education bill and the government's attitude to Future Fellowships?

Prof. Byrne: I think that would have been probably the first clarification of the coupling. But I would have to say I could not pinpoint that time exactly.

Senator KIM CARR: It was around that time? Prof. Byrne: Around-ish that time—yes, indeed. Senator KIM CARR: When were you aware that the continuation of the Future Fellowships scheme

depended on the passage of the higher education changes? At the same time? Prof. Byrne: Again, discussions around various changes to our Future Fellowships scheme occurs before the

budget. It was an NPP into the budget. We were involved in those discussions in the budget preparations. People are always having conversations about where the resource comes from. There is obviously linking of those things at various stages. But that, I think, was clarification from the minister of the coupling.



Senator KIM CARR: So you were aware of it prior to the budget? Prof. Byrne: Again, we were not consulted directly about where that money comes from. We were consulted

about the need for a Future Fellowships scheme. We articulated the need for that scheme, and that was accepted by the minister. We were not consulted on where the resources for that were to be found specifically, no.

Senator KIM CARR: When we met in October I did suggest to you that the bill would be voted down in the Senate, as, of course, occurred. What impact has that had on the ARC?

Prof. Byrne: As we indicated then, the Future Fellowships scheme is coupled to that, so we have not progressed with that scheme. We are in a very similar position now as we were then. You, Senator, probably have a better sense of how that legislation is going to go through the Senate than I do.

Senator KIM CARR: I take it you have advised the minister of the consequence for the Future Fellowships scheme?

Prof. Byrne: I have not specifically had the conversation with the minister, but I am sure the minister's office knows all of this.

Senator KIM CARR: You have had no direct conversation with the minister's office about the failure to be able to implement the Future Fellowships scheme?

Prof. Byrne: No, no. I have not had a direct conversation with the minister about this. Senator KIM CARR: Sorry. The minister's office? Prof. Byrne: The minister's office, certainly. Senator KIM CARR: I was looking on your website for the important dates for the current schemes. I saw

that the application process is underway for Linkage, for Discovery and for early career researchers. There is no information on the current round of Future Fellowships.

Prof. Byrne: No, there is not. Senator KIM CARR: Why is that? Prof. Byrne: As we talked about, it has been coupled to the broader bill. Until we get some clarity there, we

cannot proceed on it. Senator KIM CARR: At what point do you say there is not sufficient time for a Future Fellowships round? Prof. Byrne: I would never give up. If we can get clarity of that bill soon then we can proceed with it. But

until we get clarity— Senator KIM CARR: I will put it to you that, on the available evidence, the clarity is there: the bill is not

going to succeed. At what date is it no longer possible for you to continue with this current round? Prof. Byrne: Again, that depends. We can commence a Future Fellowships scheme at any time that the

minister allows us, consistent with the resources that we have available. There is no particular time associated with that particular scheme. There is a historical time associated with that. But we do not necessarily need to stick to that historical time for opening and closing that scheme.

Senator KIM CARR: There is a limit this financial year though, isn't there? Prof. Byrne: Absolutely. We would have passed it for this financial year, certainly. We would not be able to

run a process for future fellows and have the money out the door for this financial year. Senator KIM CARR: So there are no Future Fellowships around this financial year? Prof. Byrne: For the financial year 2014-15? No. Ms Paul: This issue was created of course, because the funding was due to run out. Prof. Byrne: Indeed. CHAIR: Sorry, could you just flesh that out a little bit please, Professor? Prof. Byrne: The Future Fellowships scheme when it was created was a terminating scheme. It ran for five

years with an extension of one year and then it was scheduled to stop, and we are suffering from the consequences of it being a terminating scheme.

CHAIR: For those who are not familiar with that term, could you just explain what a 'terminating scheme' means in the budget context?

Prof. Byrne: Indeed, thank you. So many of our schemes within our Discovery Program like Discovery Projects are run every year, and the sector is used to having a selection around every year, and we have been doing that for as long as I can remember. The Future Fellowships scheme was warmly, widely accepted in the



sector when it was created but it was created only for five years. So we ran five rounds of that scheme, and that was all that was established in the forward estimates for those fellowships. An additional round was provided for, so that allows us to provide six rounds of Future Fellowships, but, after that, the money does not exist and we cannot continue to offer it. So we have only ever been able to run six rounds of Future Fellowships.

Senator KIM CARR: So there will be no more rounds? Prof. Byrne: The initiative of this government is to create an ongoing Future Fellowships system which puts it

on a level with the other schemes like our DECRA scheme, like our Discovery Scheme, that is there every year and gives stability to the sector.

Senator KIM CARR: But it cannot operate—you have got no authority to operate it yet? Prof. Byrne: It is being coupled with the board, a degree, until we get some resolution— Senator KIM CARR: What is to stop the government— Senator Birmingham: Senator Carr, remember: you left no funding. You left no funding for this program. Senator KIM CARR: I actually introduced the scheme— Senator Birmingham: And you left no funding. Senator KIM CARR: and provided five years of funding for the scheme. Senator Birmingham: And it has run out. In the five years, it ran out, and you never had an extension on it Senator KIM CARR: That is not quite right: I was not actually in the job at the time, but putting that aside— Senator Birmingham: Oh, I am sorry: the government of which you were a member—although I know you

disassociated yourself from it for some years of that government. Senator KIM CARR: I just stated a fact. The fact is: you will not be operating a scheme this year or any

subsequent year. Is that the case? Prof. Byrne: No, I do not know the answer to that, and you asked me a question about this financial year. It is

too late to run a scheme this financial year. I cannot say we might not run it this year. This year is 2015. Senator KIM CARR: Sure. What conversation have you had about the next financial year's operations? Prof. Byrne: Again, until we get clarity because of the coupling in the act, then there is little point me having

that conversation. Ms Paul: The budget initiative last year by this government was to make it—as Professor Byrne has said—an

ongoing program. That is absolutely clear that the commitment is not to make it a terminating program but to make it an ongoing program of 100 a year. That relies on legislation, which of course is currently before the parliament.

Senator KIM CARR: Right, so there is no, no discussion about alternative legislation? Prof. Byrne: No. Not with me. Senator KIM CARR: Thank you. Prof. Byrne: Not with me. Senator KIM CARR: Sorry not with you? Prof. Byrne: Not with me, no. Senator KIM CARR: Sorry, with the ARC. Prof. Byrne: Not with the ARC. Senator KIM CARR: Not with the ARC. Prof. Byrne: Not with the ARC. Senator Birmingham: Have you got an alternative proposal as to how you would fund it senator Carr? Senator KIM CARR: That is a matter for the government, and we are not supporting— Senator Birmingham: And the government has presented a finding— Senator KIM CARR: You will make the call and you will wear the odium for it. Senator Birmingham: The government has presented a funding proposal which Labor never had. There was

no funding proposal form Labor for Future Fellows or NCRIS, and the government has presented that funding proposal. It is transparent in the budget. It has been transparent in Minister Pyne's comments on the record since then. It has been transparent in comments made by Senator Payne at theses estimates hearings in the answers to questions. It has been a pretty transparent activity.



Senator KIM CARR: That is good. Senator Birmingham: We want to provide the long-term funding but, like everything in this government,

when we have to find funding for something we have to find it from somewhere. We do not just take it off the money tree like you used to think was acceptable.

Senator KIM CARR: Right. In the Campus Review on the 1 December, Professor Byrne, you have noted that the success rate for Discovery Project has fallen from 19.9 per cent in 2013 to 18 per cent in 2014. Is that correct? Have I understood that correctly?

Prof. Byrne: That is quite correct. That is the Discovery Project. Senator KIM CARR: Can you run through the reasons for the fall in the success rate? Prof. Byrne: There are two reasons for that. One is that the number of applications to the scheme was greater,

and it is about half of that change. The other half is a consequence of the need to reprioritise money into a selected set of areas determined by the government.

Senator KIM CARR: What was the reprioritisation? Prof. Byrne: The reprioritisation was funding for a number of initiatives—juvenile diabetes, tropical diseases

and dementia— Senator KIM CARR: What has been the consequence in terms of the fall in the success rate? Prof. Byrne: The consequence is that one per cent of applicants did not get funded, which would have got

funded in previous years. Senator KIM CARR: Can you confirm that the ARC has maintained the return rate at around 64 per cent for

2014? Prof. Byrne: It is approximately the same. I have a chart here that I am happy to table, if you would like me

to. Senator KIM CARR: Yes, thank you. I appreciate it. Prof. Byrne: That chart shows both the success rates and the return rates for that scheme. Senator KIM CARR: You say that a risk is created or a spiral of ambit in bidding if the return rate falls too

low. In your experience, at what level does this behaviour start to occur? Prof. Byrne: If you look at that curve, it is quite telling. In 2012 the return rate was 50 per cent. What that

said was that, on average, we gave half the money that people requested for grants. I thought that was too low. When I came into the ARC, it was my view that that should be increased. That is what you can see from that curve. We have got it back up to a level that I think is more acceptable. As I said in that article which your referring to there, when we only give half the money, the natural inclination of the people asking us for money is to ask for more, and then we give them less. That spirals out of control very quickly. So I have been going around the country making it very clear—and, indeed, this is something echoing the Commonwealth grants rules and guidelines—that we should also be looking for value for money and to really get universities not to pay grants, not to ask for more, to be a lot more specific about what they are asking for and a lot clearer about why they are asking for that money. Our obligation, when we see grants like that, is to fund them as much as we can.

Senator KIM CARR: As you have noted, there is obviously a balancing act between success rates and return rates. Based on the current forward estimates, are you able to project what might happen if the return rate falls to about 64 per cent?

Prof. Byrne: The return rate so-called is around there, and I hope to keep it around there, but the success rate is going to keep dropping slightly. The consequence of that is that we are unlikely to see a significant increase in the money in our Discovery Project pool over the next few years, but we are seeing an increase in demand for that. Inevitably, the success rates are going to go down, and they are additionally going to go down because we have increased the number of grants which are now funded for five years. What that actually means is that we have a funding profile that now extends longer. When it comes to the point where we normally would have had the full resource available, we will find that we have already allocated some of that into longer grants. Longer grants in general is a good idea, but it comes at a cost and the cost is going to be against success rates. So our success rates are more likely to converge to the NHMRC, who are slightly ahead of us on the curve in terms of success rates.

Senator KIM CARR: There is some dispute about longer grant rates, but I will come to that in a moment. Are you aware that the United Kingdom's natural environmental science council has decided to cut the maximum size of grants in its bid to boost success rates? Are you aware of that/



Prof. Byrne: I was not aware of that, and I would not support it. Senator KIM CARR: You would not support it? Prof. Byrne: No, I would not support it. Senator KIM CARR: So you have not considered that? Prof. Byrne: Yes, I have considered it; but I would not support it. Senator KIM CARR: And you have rejected it. Prof. Byrne: Yes. Senator KIM CARR: I see. Prof. Byrne: Again, it is about this mix between trying to support research at a proper level and trying to

spread the money out too thinly. I am not sure what their success rates are. I would guess— Senator KIM CARR: What about 18 per cent? Prof. Byrne: Comparable to ours. Senator KIM CARR: Yes. That is the issue, you see. As I am advised, they have also decided to restrict the

number of grant applications that can be submitted from one institution, because they think the 18 per cent success rate is too low. Have you considered measures of that type?

Prof. Byrne: Yes, we have considered measures of that type, and I have been talking with the sector quite significantly about institutions who give us grant applications that, in our view, are not up to standard.

Senator KIM CARR: So a restriction on the number of grant applications per institution is something then you would take seriously?

Prof. Byrne: I think that we have to consider very, very seriously those options. The EPSRC in the UK had an interesting model a few years ago where they actually prevented people from applying, for instance, if they had been unsuccessful in two rounds. Although they only applied it in a score of cases, it had a significant effect on applications. That is something, again, that we have considered. The difficulty there is that they run a much faster cycle of grants, and, if we were to prohibit people from applying, then we would prohibit them for a whole two years, which is a long time in a young person's academic career. So we do consider these options to try and deal with this problem of increasing demand from the sector, and that is what we are dealing with. Coming back to your very first question, half of the drop—a whole per cent—from 19.19 per cent to 18 per cent is just due to increased demand, and there is almost nothing that we can do about that.

Senator KIM CARR: Well, there is. Prof. Byrne: We do consider options like saying to institutions, 'Only give us a certain number of grant

applications', but if you think about the whole cycle of things, then you have to try and consider what is the most efficient way of running a process. You could say to institutions, 'Okay, run an internal process and decide what are your best grants and only put those forward, or give them all to the ARC.' There is an overhead or there is a cost for an institution to duplicate our processes in order to do that. So you have to look at the problem as a whole—you really cannot just consider one component of it—and try and determine what is the most efficient way of doing it.

Senator KIM CARR: There is an issue around the quality of grant applications, is that not the nub of what you said?

Prof. Byrne: Again, I am encouraging universities not to waste academics' time where they know their staff have little likelihood of success. Another enormous complaint that we get from the sector is that lots of hours of academics' time are spent reset applying for research grants. There is a whole pool of applicants who have really very, very little chance of success in the ARC scheme, particularly when our success rates are only one in five or smaller. Institutions do need to think about whether that is the best use of their academics' time. This is a problem for institutions. Is it a sensible strategy for an institution just to submit more grants? In my view, it is not. They should be a little bit more selective about what grants they put to us, because it does fill up the system, it does impose a bigger burden on us and it does impose a bigger burden on the selection process. This last year in selection processes, we sent out assessments to 22,000 people. We are imposing upon the system enormously. If there is a sensible way of moderating that demand, then the whole system may be a little bit more efficient. So of course we think about those issues all the time, and we have a lot of conversations with the sector about the best way to do this.

Senator KIM CARR: Professor Warwick Anderson recently made some comments in relation to the NHMRC, saying that there were too many highly trained medical researchers looking to build research careers



compared with grants available to support their research. What is your response to that, given that you also distribute medical research grants?

Prof. Byrne: That is a very interesting response. One of the differences between the NHMRC and ourselves is that they are actually funding, from our perspective, one discipline area. If you look at a categorisation of research in terms of fields of research codes, there are 22 of those spanning from physics and mathematics to language and culture, and philosophy and religion. Medical science is but one of those. There is as much money in that medical science field of research code as there is in the ARC. The article that you refer to from Professor Anderson points to their early career researcher schemes. There are 135 researchers in their scheme, in the early career researcher schemes. So that is 135 researchers in one field of research code. Our comparable scheme in the ARC has 200 fellowships across 22 fields of research code. That is 10 per research code. So if you look at the balance between the spend in medical research compared to the spend across all other disciplines, I think Warwick is highlighting an interesting point. We could actually be investing in other areas of research more strongly.

Senator KIM CARR: In particular, he was not saying do not train more PhDs; he was saying to get a stronger industry focus. Do you agree with that assessment?

Prof. Byrne: Industry focus is one, but he was also talking about other dimensions to even help health research—things like bioinformatics and engineering—but also the broader scale of things, even around health research.

Senator KIM CARR: What are you doing to develop stronger industrial PhDs? Prof. Byrne: One of the schemes that is having some good inroads to that area is the Industrial

Transformation Research Program and specifically training centres. Those training centres are about specifically training PhD students to work in industry, post-doctoral students for working in industry. Each of those training centres has to have 10 PhD students working with an industry partner. I think that is a terrific scheme. I forget how many we have launched so far, but I will have that number for you shortly.

On top of that, the research hubs have specific linkages with industry. Again, there is direct and significant engagement by industry. On top of that, our linkage projects have connection with industry, and that is industry in the broad. These are very, very successful programs for linking with industry. Interestingly, 40 per cent of our centres of excellence scheme, which is a scheme actually which is about research in the broad, have a named industry partner on them and I think that is a triumph as well.

Senator KIM CARR: In an article in Australian Resources and Investment in December last year, you also talked about aligning these industry transformation research programs and proposed growth centres under the government's so-called competitiveness agenda. You noted that a number of these ITRP centres are focusing on making improvements in mining and engineering, including a $4 million ARC research hub for transforming mining value chain in Tasmania. How has the ARC has been involved in the consultations regarding the establishment of these so-called new growth centres?

Prof. Byrne: We have not been a major player in the development of those growth centres. The connection that we have there is that our priority areas for the Industrial Transformation Research Program are the same ones, as I understand, as for those growth centres. So we are seeing an alignment in that direction.

Senator KIM CARR: Has the funding for the Industrial Transformation Research Program been quarantined for use in growth centres or is there any—

Prof. Byrne: No. The funding for the Industrial Transformation Research Program was quarantined into the priority areas determined by the government which are the same, as I understand it, as the growth centres. This is something that we determined in consultation with the Minister for Industry and Science.

Senator KIM CARR: Have you had any discussion with industry about these growth centre processes? Prof. Byrne: No formal discussions have been had with us, consulting us about the development of those

industry growth centres. Senator KIM CARR: None from the department? Prof. Byrne: From the department. Senator KIM CARR: Have you had any discussion with industry about the development of those centres? Prof. Byrne: With industries, you mean, in general? Senator KIM CARR: People who actually run big enterprises and stuff like that. Prof. Byrne: Other than casual conversations, no formal conversations.



Senator KIM CARR: I am just surprised. Given that you have these transformation research programs operating, you have a number of other programs in this industry collaboration, why aren't you involved in the development of the growth centres?

Prof. Byrne: That is probably a conversation that probably should be directed to the industry portfolio. Senator KIM CARR: Yes. It is not a question that you can answer. I understand that there is a review, an

internal review, of the ARC centres of excellent program? Prof. Byrne: Yes, there is indeed, and this is one of a number of internal reviews that we do run. Senator KIM CARR: It is a standard evaluation, is it? Prof. Byrne: Absolutely. On top of that, we run specific reviews of our centres of excellence on a regular

basis and we have just— Senator KIM CARR: But this is just a standard review process, this evaluation? Prof. Byrne: Yes. Senator KIM CARR: Have you completed the centres of excellence review yet? Prof. Byrne: No. I was going to say that there are two that we are doing at the moment with regard to our

centres of excellence. One is reviewing the centres themselves, and that process is nearly complete. I think the reviews of all those centres have been completed and the reports are back to those centres. But there is also a broader review that we are managing internally by our reviewing people of the centre's program itself, and that is underway.

Senator KIM CARR: Can we get access to these review findings? Prof. Byrne: I think we will be publishing them, yes. Senator KIM CARR: When will you be publishing? Prof. Byrne: We really only have commenced it, so I do not see it before the end of the sitting. Senator KIM CARR: I am thinking about the individual centres. Prof. Byrne: We make them available to the centres. We do not actually publish them on the website. But I

am sure the centres themselves would be happy enough to share them. Senator KIM CARR: With that sort of invitation, what can I do? Regarding the knowledge translation

metrics, can you advise the committee what is happening around the assessment of the so-called impact or knowledge translation? What is happening on that front?

Prof. Byrne: There are probably people later on better able to answer that because, if I understand you correctly, you are possibly referring to a working group being coordinated through ATSE, the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering. This is a program sponsored by the department, among other people, and maybe people in outcome 3 know a little bit more about it. I have been closely involved in the working group that is being coordinated by ATSE and I believe they are due to report back to the department fairly shortly.

Senator KIM CARR: Which department? Prof. Byrne: Education and training. Senator KIM CARR: There is no reporting in the industry department? Prof. Byrne: There is certainly membership from the industry department on there as well. Mr Griew: It is a program that we are sponsoring, but it is in collaboration with industry. Senator KIM CARR: Is the project boosting the commercial returns from research part of your remit? Prof. Byrne: No. Senator KIM CARR: Are you having any consultation with that? Prof. Byrne: We had various opportunities to make comments on things around that, but, again, it is run out

of the agency. Senator KIM CARR: Who is running that? Prof. Byrne: The boosting is the industry. Senator KIM CARR: Industry. Mr Griew: You can ask more questions later also under outcome 3 about that if you want. Senator KIM CARR: I am just surprised the ARC is not involved in that.



Prof. Byrne: Again, we do have conversations with members of that department, but we are not owning that process.

Senator KIM CARR: Yes, I have heard about them. But there is no formal process. Senator Birmingham: I am not sure what that is meant to mean: 'I have heard about them.' Senator KIM CARR: Well, I have. Senator Birmingham: There seemed to be a tone to your suggestion that you have heard about them. Senator KIM CARR: Thank you for your advice. Senator Birmingham: The aim is to talk to each other. Senator KIM CARR: I appreciate your depth of experience in this matter. Senator Birmingham: Thank you for the condescension. Senator KIM CARR: We would get a lot further if you did not intervene with idiotic remarks, Minister. You

would get a lot further. Senator Birmingham: Really? CHAIR: Senator Carr, can you withdraw 'idiotic remarks'? Senator KIM CARR: Withdraw what—that he has not made an idiotic remark? CHAIR: It is a very subjective comment. Senator KIM CARR: But it is a statement of fact. CHAIR: Senator Carr, please! Senator Birmingham: Honestly, Chair, I could not care less. Senator KIM CARR: Thank you. An article that appeared in The Australian on 21 January said that the ARC

does not want to go down the British route of case studies in regard to the development of impact measures. Is that accurate?

Prof. Byrne: I suspect it is a true reading of what I would have put in that article. Senator KIM CARR: There was a 2013 case study pilot conducted by the ARC, was there not? Prof. Byrne: It was not conducted by the ARC, it was conducted by the Group of Eight and ATN—the

Australian Technology Network. Senator KIM CARR: So it was a university study? Prof. Byrne: Correct. Senator KIM CARR: Have you had any chance to assess that? Prof. Byrne: In what sense? Again, it is a study that I think we have learned a lot from. The more significant

exercise in that area is the UK one. Again, there have been a lot of conversations between ourselves, running the ERA exercise, and HEFCE in the UK running that particular exercise, and there was a lot of learning from HEFCE in the UK looking at our exercise. I think that really did usefully inform them in their exercise. Indeed, there has been a very positive interaction between research assistant people in the UK and in Australia, and we have learned from each other as time has gone on.

Senator KIM CARR: What is your concern about the case studies approach? Prof. Byrne: It is like cracking eggs; it is trying to get the answer for the effort involved. The reports that I

have had, and the discussions that I have had with people in the UK, are that the UK has done a very interesting exercise looking at case studies, and it has been a very useful exercise. It is useful in one particular sense, and that is because it has heightened universities' need to articulate the benefits of research. The downside of the exercise was the time involved in compiling those case studies. I think HEFCE in the UK did a very good job in establishing a methodology of assessment of case studies. I would have a high degree of confidence in their ability to pick up a case study, evaluate it and say, 'Yes, this is a good example of the impact of research.' The downside is whether it has been cost-effective, whether it has told you anything really significant that you cannot get from other parts of the exercise.

The HEFCE exercise in the UK is a very different exercise from the ERA exercise. It is my view that the HEFCE exercise is an exercise about the allocation of government resource, and indeed 20 or 25 per cent of the allocation in the HEFCE exercise is going to be predicated on the case study methodology. I think the English exercise has shown us that you can develop a methodology of analysis of case studies that you might be able to use for the allocation of resource, but I think the big question in the UK is still whether it is worth the extra effort



of doing that. The big return, in my view, of the exercise in the UK was, as I articulated a few moments ago, is the sensitisation of the sector and articulating the benefits of research. This was a step change in the UK. As we pointed out a moment ago, we have had the ATN Group of Eight exercise around case studies. The gain in the UK was, as I say, the sensitisation of the community into telling the stories about why research is important. We have already done that to some degree in our exercise. Were we to mimic the UK exercise to run a case study methodology, it would be my view that the value add of that exercise would not be as great as in the UK because we are already halfway there. If the cost effectiveness of the exercise in the UK is under question, that says that in Australia it would be likely to be even less cost-effective.

Senator KIM CARR: There is an article by Professor Peter Gray in the latest issue of Australian Science. He talks about the knowledge translation metrics project. He is chairing the steering committee. Is the ARC involved in that?

Prof. Byrne: This is the one referred to, that has some sponsorship from the department. It involves representatives from ourselves, NHMRC, the industry and science department, and it is run by ATSE, who have a very strong participation in that exercise.

Senator KIM CARR: What is the status of the project? I understand the report has been delivered? Prof. Byrne: I believe the report is due to the department in a month or so. Mr Griew: I will have to confirm that later. Senator KIM CARR: I might have been misinformed, but the report— Prof. Byrne: The report has not been delivered. Senator KIM CARR: The article that I have quoted says that the report from the project has been delivered to

the education department. Prof. Byrne: That is not true. Mr Griew: That is not true. Senator KIM CARR: You think that is just wrong? Prof. Byrne: That is not true; that is wrong. I am on the steering group. Senator KIM CARR: If I could go back to the issue of measuring impact—it has always been a fraught

matter, and industry engagement has also been contentious. In terms of that matter, where do you think we are going now?

Prof. Byrne: It will be interesting to see whether this exercise that you describe, which is coordinated by ATSE, is actually going to be useful. The parameters are really about trying to see if there is enough information in the system that you can use in a sensible way as an indicator of impact of research without going through other sorts of exercises. It is distinct from what ERA tries to do, and, as you know because you were there at the very beginning, the ERA exercise is about evaluating research quality. It is not about evaluating the effectiveness of the translation or impact of that research. No-one, in my view, around the world—and this includes HEFCE in the UK—has cracked that nut of solving how to measure research impact in a simple way that is not caught up in the various contributing sources to the research impact, and is not caught up in the long timescales that get associated with truly measuring the impact of basic research, such as happens in our universities.

Senator KIM CARR: It appears that the debate really has not moved very far. Prof. Byrne: I do not think that is quite true either. What we do not have is another exercise that is measuring

the impact of research, but nobody in the world has that. Senator KIM CARR: No-one knows how to do it, but is there any question about compromising ERA in this

process? Prof. Byrne: No, I do not think so. One has to be careful to understand what ERA is doing. ERA is a measure

of research quality, and I think it is very valuable for the nation to run an exercise like ERA that is keeping the focus of universities on research quality. If you look for one indicator about how to make our universities great, it is a focus on research quality, so I think that is a very valuable thing. But it is also very useful to make sure that there are other supporters and other indicators available to universities to help them and assist them in also having a focus on how their research may be important to the country as a whole and, particularly, to give them incentives to collaborate with industry. If you can look for some other indicators that are not overly burdensome on a sector that can actually get a good handle on that, that is a very valuable thing to do.

Senator KIM CARR: Is it your expectation that we will see new metrics implemented any time soon? Prof. Byrne: I would have to go into opinion on that one. We could. We might.



Senator KIM CARR: I do not ask for opinions. You know that. Prof. Byrne: I know you do not. We might. Senator KIM CARR: But the expectations are different. Prof. Byrne: We might see it, and that could be a very a valuable— Senator KIM CARR: Over what time period would your expectation be that we might see it? Prof. Byrne: If you are serious about it, first of all, you have to do what this exercise run at the moment by

ATSE is doing and look at the available indicators and do an assessment about whether they are really practicable. You then have to trial it in some way; you really have to run a test on something to see if it works. That says that it is probably a year away from implementation. Then there is the big question—always a question with these exercises—what do you use it for? In the UK, the answer to that is actually very clear because the UK research assessment exercise is not about the assessment of research. It is about the apportionment of the block amount resource in the UK and it is about ranking universities for the purposes of that allocation.

We do not use our evaluation exercise, our ERA exercise, here for that, yet it has, I think, usefully changed behaviours in universities in a very positive way. But there are arguments around that that I have some sympathy with: that it provides universities with the only game in town. I think it is also important for universities to focus on attributes other than research quality. If you want a single indicator, it is probably the best, but universities do need to interact strongly with industry for our country to do better, and finding instruments to that, I think, is quite important.

You asked me if I think there is going to be an indicator soon. There could well be an indicator in a year, but you have to be careful. You have to think through it in a very careful way. That was one of the very good things about ERA; it did manage the process well. When people first heard of ERA, the university system was very wary about the process.

Senator KIM CARR: No, that is unfair. Some sections were— Prof. Byrne: Some sections were. It is very interesting to reflect on ERA as we are running it out now,

because we are in the implementation phase of the next ERA. Senator KIM CARR: But there are constant efforts to get in underneath it. Prof. Byrne: There is that; I accept that. But universities are much more accepting of the process and

understanding of the process, and it has gone a lot more smoothly this time than it has in the past. That is a very good, positive thing. You have to do the same work if you want to find an indicator around the impact of research. As I said, it has variables—like the multiple contributions to the success of something—and the long timescales associated with mapping basic research to a tangible outcome at the end. They make that process quite—measuring academic quality is a cinch compared to that, actually. And that is hard.

ACTING CHAIR: Thank you very much, Professor Byrne and Dr Dan. Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency

[17:16] ACTING CHAIR (Senator Ruston): Welcome Professor Saunders. I believe congratulations are in order for

your appointment. Welcome. Would you like to make an opening statement before we go to questions? Prof. Saunders: No, I have no opening statement to make. Senator KIM CARR: I take it you have had an opportunity to read the Teacher Education Ministerial

Advisory Group report, Action Now, dated December 2014. Prof. Saunders: I read a summary of that and the government's response. Senator KIM CARR: I understand you have also been charged with re-accrediting the 400 courses across 48

separate institutions within two years. Is that your understanding? Prof. Saunders: No, my understanding is that I am to cooperate with the Australian Institute for Teaching and

School Leadership and that we are yet to sit down and work through how that cooperation between— Mr Cook: The state accreditation body is actually— Senator KIM CARR: The courses themselves, what will you actually have to do? Prof. Saunders: There are 15 providers on our register, remembering that most teacher education goes on in

the universities and TEQSA does not accredit university courses. They are self-accrediting institutions. There are 15 providers on our register that provide 53 courses that relate to teacher education. They are from providers that



are some faith based colleges, some TAFEs or ex-TAFEs and a smattering of other providers, like Montessori. Our job will be to—

Senator KIM CARR: You are really doing the 15 non-university trainers of teachers. Is that what you are saying?

Prof. Saunders: That is the routine at the moment. We do not accredit university programs. What we do though, when we come to re-register universities, is we have the opportunity and take the opportunity to look at some of the courses they are offering. We generally look at those courses from the point of view of academic governance and quality assurance rather than the content of the courses. But in the course of us re-registering universities, there will be a chance—if it is deemed appropriate, and we will obviously consult on this—for TEQSA to have a role in looking at teacher education, specifically.

Senator KIM CARR: What is the additional cost involved in this extra work you have been asked to undertake?

Prof. Saunders: I do not believe we have been asked to do any extra work, at the moment, so I cannot give you an answer to that.

Senator KIM CARR: You normally would be reviewing these particular institutions, would you? Prof. Saunders: Yes. For re-registration of universities, as I have said, it is our routine to look at about five

courses from the perspective of academic governance. And, as I say, we negotiate with the universities which courses we would look at. It is quite feasible that, over the next year or two, one of those courses that we would look at within each of the universities would be their teacher education programs.

Senator KIM CARR: Only five courses? Prof. Saunders: We only look at five courses in universities, by and large, yes. It is a small aspect of our re-

registration activities. Ms Paul: The government's response said that the government asks this and that of ATSIL, and:

Additionally, a closer working relationship between AITSL and the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) will be established to make sure the two complement each other and together address any courses identified as a concern. So it is a quality perspective. But AITSL has the key role, as we spoke about with them, in their accreditation and reaccreditation. You will recall that Ms Evans said that, arising from the TEMAG review, she expected to be required to accelerate the reaccreditation or the reassessment.

Senator KIM CARR: Professor, there is a reference in the report that goes to the issue of entry standards. Is that a matter that TEQSA would look at?

Prof. Saunders: With all our providers we are interested in looking at admission criteria, and entry standards is one of those criteria that we would look at.

Senator KIM CARR: Does TEQSA have a view on the question of academic entry requirements? Prof. Saunders: As you know, we re-accredit courses and we re-register or register providers on the basis of

looking at their performance or their plans against the Higher Education Standards Framework, and there are standards that relate to admission. What those standards require are for the admission standards of the particular institution or the particular course to be quite clear and unambiguous, and we need to see that the institution is paying regard to its own policies in that regard, but as well as that there is a review of how the students are proceeding in the course and then there is action taken depending upon the findings of that monitoring.

Senator KIM CARR: So would you look at noncompletion rates? Prof. Saunders: Part of our annual information gathering is to look at completion rates, progression rates,

attrition rates—those sorts of things. Senator KIM CARR: Is that on the basis of what the universities tell you, or do you have any independent— Prof. Saunders: We use the information from universities from the HEMs data collection, which is what they

submit to the department. Senator KIM CARR: The report here tells us:

… the total proportion of students admitted to teacher education programs on the basis of an ATAR of 60 or less remains low across the board, at approximately seven per cent for regional universities in 2013 and about six per cent for all universities. I would have thought that is quite a significant number, but the question I put to you is: do you have any insight into what a 60 ATAR actually looks like? For instance, are you aware of any bonus schemes that operate by universities or other providers that build upon a raw ATAR so that it gets up to 60?



Prof. Saunders: I am not sure that this is actually relevant to TEQSA's role in the functions that we play in quality assurance of the higher education sector. My answer, if you want me to answer, would be based really on an opinion from my prior experience rather than speaking as an official from TEQSA.

Senator KIM CARR: I will not press you on this, but in your experience how does it work? Prof. Saunders: It works by students getting entry via a variety of pathways, some of which indeed do not

involve an ATAR at all, some of which involve a raw ATAR, some of which involve entering into pathway programs run by the institution, some of which have bonus points added to them for disadvantaged background, geography—there are a whole range of reasons why bonus points might be added.

Senator KIM CARR: My interest goes to how the bonus scheme works. It is not apparent from this report how it works.

Ms Paul: That is I think the purpose of recommendation 11 that we spoke about before from TEMAG, to have universities make all that transparent.

Senator KIM CARR: I understand what the report says. Professor Saunders is particularly experienced in universities. I am wondering if he could provide any advice on what his experience tells us about how the bonus scheme works when it comes to the establishment of an ATAR? I think there is a substantial difference between an ATAR of 60 and a raw ATAR, which may be considerably less than 60.

Prof. Saunders: What you are talking about there is what some universities might call an adjusted ATAR, some would call it their entry score rather than the ATAR itself. Most universities are transparent about that in terms of making it quite explicit as to what they offer points for and how many points are offered. But it is a bit of a mystery for many people, I think, trying to unbundle this from the point of view of what is published in the UAC guides, for example, those sorts of things, which often do not take into account the bonus point scheme. It is a confusing and somewhat opaque thing for—

Senator KIM CARR: I would agree entirely with your assessment. But where would I find an assessment of the bonus schemes that operate? You said some institutions are transparent about it. Where do I find advice on those that are transparent about it?

Prof. Saunders: I think you would find them on the university websites under information for students. We should make the point that bonus schemes are not just applied to teacher education programs, as you know; they are for every course in the country.

Senator KIM CARR: Absolutely. I have just seen the cut-offs and the university admission schemes for main rounds 2014. Just glancing through this, I see a number of institutions have an entry ATAR of 60. That is not a raw 60; it is actually an adjusted 60—is it not?

Prof. Saunders: I do not know the document that you are referring to. Senator KIM CARR: It is the Universities Admission Centre's cut-off for main round offers, which is

published twice a year, I think. It lists the entry scores for just about every course that is operating. If I take the Catholic University, as an example since it has been given some interest in the press this morning, the teaching program there for the first list here of about nine teaching courses have ATAR entries of 60. That is not a raw entry score, is it, as a rule?

Prof. Saunders: I do not know what the Australian Catholic University do about bonus points or indeed their entries into the UAC. If they are cut-off scores run by UAC, they will include bonus points.

Senator KIM CARR: That is my point. Prof. Saunders: What we are concerned about at TEQSA is that regardless of the admission processes that a

provider has, be it public or private, university or non-university, is that they have adequate support for their students, they monitor what is happening and they make sure that there is a continuous cycle of improvement with regard to the success of their students. We are interested in student outcomes here, the welfare of the students and the quality of their experience.

Senator KIM CARR: Is it true that you are finishing up your acting CEO role this week? Prof. Saunders: Friday—I am still acting. Senator KIM CARR: I see. Then you will be replaced with an interim appointment—is that right? Prof. Saunders: I am staying on as a part-time chief commissioner, so I am staying on in the role as chief

commissioner but there will be an interim CEO appointed— Senator KIM CARR: That is Mr Ben Johnson, is it? Prof. Saunders: That is correct.



Senator KIM CARR: He is formerly branch head of the VET FEE-HELP? Is that the same fellow? Prof. Saunders: My colleagues in the department— Mr Griew: He is not just formerly; he is substantively VET. He is going to temporarily fill the position as

interim CEO while— Senator KIM CARR: So he would have some experience about how the VET system operates? Mr Griew: He is extremely knowledgeable about the whole tertiary education system. Ms Paul: He has worked in the tertiary education area for a long time. Mr Griew: And he has also been responsible for a significant period of time for the liaison with TEQSA. Senator KIM CARR: What is the plan to appoint a permanent CEO? Can you help me on that score? Prof. Saunders: That process is underway. There is a search firm that has been engaged, and there are

applications that have been received. That process will roll out in the next month or two. Senator KIM CARR: Is it intended to fill the position by June? Prof. Saunders: It would be my hope that it would be filled by June. Senator KIM CARR: But there is no formal time line for that? Ms Paul: It is a process run by us, and it is the department that commissions the search firm et cetera. Of

course, we want to try to fill the position substantively, permanently, as soon as we can. Senator KIM CARR: But you are not expecting to complete it by June? Ms Paul: I would hope we would, yes, absolutely. We are already out in the market. Senator KIM CARR: Has an advertisement been placed? Ms Paul: Yes. Senator KIM CARR: Whereabouts are you in the appointment process then? Mr Griew: We have had a report from the search firm. We have a selection panel ready to go. We are looking

at potential candidates and moving towards short-listing. Senator KIM CARR: That is an appointment by government, is it not? Ms Paul: Yes. Mr Griew: That is right. Senator KIM CARR: So it will be a cabinet appointment? Ms Paul: I think it is a ministerial appointment. Mr Griew: We will take that on notice. Senator KIM CARR: Surely that goes to cabinet? Ms Paul: I will check that; it could well. Senator KIM CARR: Thank you, if you could. Can you confirm that the funding cut for TEQSA in the

current year has been $3.428 million? Mr Griew: The appropriation in 2013-14 was $18.5 million. It is $15.5 million this year, so it is $3 million

during this financial year, and then it is planned to go down by another $4 million in 2015-16. Senator KIM CARR: And the staff numbers—we have discussed this on previous occasions. How are we

going with the staff numbers? Prof. Saunders: Fifty-six at the moment. Senator KIM CARR: How many is that down? Prof. Saunders: That is down 10 from the last time I reported to Senate estimates. What I have been doing in

the meantime is filling those positions with contract staff, not permanent staff, simply because of the budget changes that will be happening in July this year.

Senator KIM CARR: What savings measures have you been able to identify to manage the efficiency dividend?

Prof. Saunders: You mean the changes in our budget? Senator KIM CARR: Yes. Prof. Saunders: I think I spoke about that last time. We have done our utmost to try and reduce non-salary

costs, and we have done a good job there. We have been able to outsource some of our processes, backroom



office corporate functions, to the Productivity Commission, who share the same building as us. We have shrunk in size, we have got space to sublet and we are in discussions with a range of organisations to help us sublease some of our space, which will help us with our accommodation costs. But the reality is that, in an organisation like ours, which services organisations heavily dependent upon staff, it is inevitable that there will be staff reductions, and that has been happening over the last couple of years.

Ms Paul: You will recall this is caused by a narrower focusing of TEQSA on what is regarded as its core business, particularly arising from the former reviews of TEQSA and then the subsequent legislation.

Senator KIM CARR: Let me be clear about this. To what extent has the reduction been a result of the efficiency dividend and to what extent has it been a result of a reduction in function?

Prof. Saunders: There is no way that the agency could have achieved what it is achieving—we are very busy, the staff are working very hard, but we are keeping up to date with the workload as it comes in—without us actually having changed our processes. We have streamlined our processes quite significantly, and we will continue to streamline our processes going into the next financial year.

Ms Paul: The reduction was due to the refocus—for example, moving away from the theme reviews—not due to any sort of random efficiency—

Senator KIM CARR: So the agency does not need any more money. Is that what you are saying? Ms Paul: No. That would be an opinion. Senator KIM CARR: Professor, would you see it that way? Ms Paul: I am sure everyone would always like more money, but the fact is that the reduction was due to the

moving away from some activities which arose from the Braithwaite-Kwong Lee Dow review. Senator KIM CARR: I understand that. Professor, you do not need any more money? Prof. Saunders: Everyone needs more money. I think that at the moment, as I said, we are very busy and the

staff are working hard, but we are keeping our head above water. With the levels of staff that we have at the moment, I think we will manage next financial year, but it will be difficult and I cannot guarantee that we will be as timely as we are at the moment. But we are managing.

Senator KIM CARR: What other effects will you have apart from timing? Prof. Saunders: I think that is about it. I think that you can be assured that what we do will be done at very

high quality and that we will certainly have a focus on the moderate- and high-risk providers, people that our annual risk assessment identifies as possibly being at risk of not complying with the higher education standards. So I think the work that we do will be as good a quality as ever has been done, but we will have to be more focused about that—so reducing the scope of the assessment and reducing the evidence requirements in support of examining those standards. But at the moment I can assure you that very high-quality work is continuing to be done. We have reduced very, very significantly the scope of re-registration, for example.

Senator KIM CARR: At what point do you say that reductions in your budget affect the ability to actually fulfil your functions?

Prof. Saunders: I do not think our quality is impaired at the moment. As I said, it has reduced the scope and the scale of the assessments that we are doing, but I think those providers that one might have concerns about are having due attention paid to them.

Senator KIM CARR: The 10 reductions that you mentioned—was that more than you anticipated? Prof. Saunders: No. In fact, it is what needed to occur for us to manage our budget this year and going into

next year. Actually 20 people have left the agency. Four commissioners have left the agency. We had a couple of short-term projects being done, and those contracts were not renewed. And we have had about 19 people leave the agency, about half those on voluntary redundancies as part of the corporate rationalisation, and the other people have left because they have found work in other places.

Senator KIM CARR: In the regulation and review area, how many staff have you lost? Prof. Saunders: I will have to take that on notice because I can only tell you about the last six months. They

are operating at the moment with 28 people plus eight contractors, so a total of 36 people. That is the level of budget that they were allocated in the 2014-15 financial year.

Senator KIM CARR: But there is a question here of whether it is function fitting budget or budget fitting function. Is this not a core area for the agency?

Prof. Saunders: It is.



Senator KIM CARR: So have you reduced the budget to accommodate the fact that you have 28 people or do you need a further amount of money to actually fulfil the functions in regard to regulation and review?

Prof. Saunders: This year we can afford to backfill some of those positions with contractors. As I said, we have 36 people working there at the moment, but going into next year obviously we have to find savings—our budget is going down $4 million—so the numbers will go down at that stage. At the moment, though, as I said, good quality work is being done.

Senator KIM CARR: Are you preparing a draft of a new structure document? Prof. Saunders: Yes, and I am meeting with the staff tomorrow to present that to them tomorrow afternoon. Senator KIM CARR: It is in a completed form, then? Prof. Saunders: Well, it is a consultation paper, so it is there for the staff to read and respond to. It has been

seen by and amended by the senior management team in TEQSA. It has also been seen by the commission. So what is going out has high level endorsement but consultation needs to be genuine, as you know, Senator, and therefore if people come back—

Senator KIM CARR: I think that is a reasonable approach if you are going to have this. But you would not be presenting it as a fait accompli, would you?

Prof. Saunders: No, absolutely not. Senator KIM CARR: That is good to hear. When do you expect this matter to be concluded? Prof. Saunders: There is a month's consultation period. That is part of the process. So we will be having

meetings with individual staff and groups of staff over the next couple of weeks and then a decision will be taken based upon the feedback and consultation as to whether the plan needs to be amended and then the final plan will be put to the staff. I think the date for putting the final plan to the staff is 13 April.

Senator KIM CARR: I am hearing this term 'streamlining' in regard to the R&R area. What does that mean? Prof. Saunders: It is really shorthand for describing what I was saying to you before. When TEQSA first

began its operations, for example for reregistration it would have taken the provider registration standards—and there are about 40-plus of those standards—and examined each and every one of those against the applicant. About 12 months ago, there was a revision of that approach and now we use a core set of seven standards. So there is a very substantial reduction in the number of standards, but those standards, one would anticipate, go to the heart of appropriate academic governance, academic standards and student outcomes in an institution. What we have been doing is, by and large, unless there is a reason not to apply the reduced number of standards—what we call the core standards—then that is what a provider has to respond to. So the burden on them is less, the evidence that they are required to produce is less, the amount of work that we are required to do is less. At the moment, that has worked very effectively and it has worked effectively with private providers; we have done it for the first time with a public university and we were able to do the registration of that public university within three months. So it was a very efficient process. We are confident that the standards are being represented in such an appropriate way that we could be confident of the outcome. If the risk assessment that we do each year was to flag concerns that sit outside those core standards, we would include other standards in the assessment.

Senator KIM CARR: So you have dropped your core standards from 40 to seven. What are the 33 standards you have left out?

Prof. Saunders: I would have to go to my trusty Higher Education Standards Framework booklet and take you through it page by page, if you like. The other way around it would be to tell you that the core standards that we have applied, the seven that we apply—

Senator KIM CARR: The problem I have with this is that it all goes really well until you get a dodgy college that blows up in your face. Is this a tick-and-flick operation?

Prof. Saunders: No, it is not a tick and flick operation. As I say, we collect information about every provider every year. So we have information about those providers—about how long they have been operating, what their completion rates are like, what their attrition rates are like, what their staff-student ratios are, how many academic leaders they appear to have per field of education, what their financial viability and sustainability is and what their student perceptions in terms of student surveys say. We have got a very good basis upon which to look at annual performance by providers.

Ms Paul: You will remember this came out of the Kwong Lee Dow-Val Braithwaite review, towards a misplaced and proportionate approach.

Senator KIM CARR: I know that. I know where it has come from.



Senator Birmingham: A review commissioned by the previous government. Senator KIM CARR: Oh no; in fact, I released it. Let me be clear about this. I released it because they would

not. CHAIR: Senator Carr, we might just go to Senator Rhiannon, who has been waiting patiently for 25 minutes. Senator KIM CARR: Before Professor Saunders thinks he has got away with this matter, I would like to

know the substance of the 33 areas that you are no longer surveying. Prof. Saunders: I will take it on notice and I am happy to tell you what standards are included and what ones

are not. Senator RHIANNON: Thank you, Professor Saunders. I noted you said that the staff numbers are currently

56, down 10. What were the staff numbers when TEQSA started? Prof. Saunders: We had a staff level of about 100—not when we started, but we built up to staff level of

about 100. Senator RHIANNON: In what year, please? Prof. Saunders: We started in 2012, so it would have been sometime during 2012 that those numbers built up. Senator RHIANNON: So it was in the year that TEQSA started? Prof. Saunders: Yes, when TEQSA started. I think that would have included—I would have to go back and

check—the five commissioners and other sorts of staff that were brought on in the start-up phase. Senator RHIANNON: So about 100 full-time positions? Prof. Saunders: About 100 full-time positions. Senator RHIANNON: So we are now down to 56? Prof. Saunders: No. I have not counted in my 56 the commissioners, the public office holders, people on

leave without pay, people who are on maternity leave. Those 56 staff are people on the ground, working in the agency at the moment.

Senator RHIANNON: Could you give us comparable figures, even if you have to take it on notice, of what it was initially, what you built up to and then maybe on a yearly basis—it is not that many years—to see what the changes are, for full-time positions?

Prof. Saunders: Sure, I would be happy to take that on notice. Senator RHIANNON: Thank you very much. Could you also explain to me the relationship between core

and threshold standards? Prof. Saunders: The threshold standards are the standards that make up the framework, and there are close on

100 standards. They were promulgated in 2011 and are still the standards today. They cover provider registration, course accreditation, provider categories—whether a university or a non-university, those sorts of things—and the qualification standards, which relate to the Australian Qualifications Framework. They are the threshold standards. The core standards are what I was talking to Senator Carr about—

Senator RHIANNON: They are the ones that have gone from 40 to seven? Prof. Saunders: The provider registration standards, which we have reduced down to a core set of seven

standards. Senator RHIANNON: Sorry, I thought you just said provider registration was in the threshold standards? Prof. Saunders: Yes, they are. Senator RHIANNON: And they are also in the core standards? Prof. Saunders: Yes, some of them are in the core standards. Senator RHIANNON: What is the difference? Can you explain why that is the case, please? Prof. Saunders: So, for example, in the provider registration standards we have 42 threshold standards in the

provider registration standards, and seven of those 42 have been chosen to be the core. That is what we apply to all low-risk providers unless there is something in their prior history or in their risk assessment that suggests we should have a broader examination.

Ms Paul: And this is what comes out of the review, which is not letting poorer providers off the hook, but taking a risk managed approach.

Prof. Saunders: Yes, exactly.



Mr Griew: So it is not just the core. Ms Paul: So you are not abandoning all these other standards. Prof. Saunders: No, absolutely not. What we are saying is that, if you are low-risk provider and we do not

have any flags against you, then we believe—in fact we know—that those seven standards will give us a fair and accurate assessment of the quality and will give us confidence then that you would complying with all the other provider registration requirements.

Senator RHIANNON: So, if you are confident in this provider, do you always look at the seven that come under the core standards, but you would not look at the 35 provider standards that come under threshold? Is that correct?

Prof. Saunders: We would routinely, or can? Senator RHIANNON: You would not. I thought you were saying that if you have got a provider and you are

confident in them and you have not had any trouble, you have seven standards that you would look at, but there are 35 that make up the 42 that would not look at?

Prof. Saunders: Would not? That is correct. Senator RHIANNON: Thank you. What else comes under core standards, please? Ms Paul: I think the phrase that was used arising from the review was 'risk based and proportionate', wasn't it? Prof. Saunders: Yes. Ms Paul: So you might look at all 42 for a provider that was not rated risk-free, but rather rated as higher risk. Prof. Saunders: That is correct. Indeed, for initial registrations—this is for a new provider we have no

experience with; they are coming in to seek registration—we apply all 42 standards to the assessment of that provider. We are just talking here about reregistration.

Senator RHIANNON: Right. Can we get back to core standards. We have provider registration. We have seven for that. What are the other ones please?

Prof. Saunders: That is all the core we use at the moment. Senator RHIANNON: That is the only core! Prof. Saunders: We are only using the core for reregistrations at the moment. We have a process in place,

which we are taking out to consultation next month, about course accreditation and reaccreditation. And there we are going to be taking a similar approach whereby we will take the provider course accreditation standards, of the threshold standards, and we will use a core of those—roughly one third of those standards—when we look at individual courses for accreditation or reaccreditation.

Senator RHIANNON: With regard to staffing standards, we do not have any staffing standards under core standards. Is that—

Prof. Saunders: No. Staffing standards are under 3.8. CHAIR: It is in a public document—available. Prof. Saunders: It is in a public document and we do have staffing considerations in that. Senator RHIANNON: In the core standards? Prof. Saunders: Yes. Senator RHIANNON: So that is within the provider registration—those seven. And part of that covers

staffing standards? Prof. Saunders: Yes. CHAIR: Any further questions? Senator RHIANNON: Yes; sorry. In the threshold standards section relating to ensuring teaching and

learning of a high quality, the term 'equivalent professional experience' is used. Prof. Saunders: Yes. Senator RHIANNON: You would know that term because it is used a number of times. I picked that up in

4.2 in chapter 3. How is equivalent professional or research experience determined? Prof. Saunders: That comes from the Australian Qualifications Framework, which requires a provider to have

teachers who are qualified one level above the course that they are teaching. If they are teaching a bachelor's qualification they need to have a master's qualification to teach it, or professional experience that is equivalent to achieving what you would expect from a master's graduate. There are no hard and fast definitions about what that



professional experience must be. The agency requires, first of all, to see that the provider has a policy in place and that the policy looks to be reasonable. It would require somebody to be performing in the workplace at a level that would give you confidence that they have outcomes and experience equivalent to a master's qualification. That experience might include prior teaching experience.

We require the provider then to demonstrate not only that they have a policy that looks reasonable but that they also have evidence that they apply the policy. For example, when we seek information about staff we require abbreviated CVs or some document that shows the person and their qualification, and, if they are claiming professional equivalence, what that professional experience is and the level of the courses they are teaching.

Senator RHIANNON: Is that something that would vary from provider to provider? Prof. Saunders: There would be variation from provider to provider? Senator RHIANNON: Are you saying that what constitutes equivalent professional experience at one

university is difference to another? Prof. Saunders: It may well be, in minor shades; yes. Senator RHIANNON: But how does that constitute a threshold standard, with that variation? You have a

variation between institutions. How does it constitute a threshold standard? 'Threshold', in people's minds, is that you have a threshold, and that is where you work it out from.

Prof. Saunders: I think one has to accept, though, that policies across higher education providers vary. The minimum expectation is about five years equivalent experience in work for a masters qualification.

Senator RHIANNON: I suppose I am still trying to understand how that would vary, considering you are saying we have these threshold standards. It seems as though the argument falls down when you get to that point.

Prof. Saunders: Some would say three years professional experience and seeking a qualification at that level. So if you are enrolled in a masters or a doctorate degree and you have three years professional experience that would be considered acceptable to teach a bachelors course. Don't forget that, for example, quite a lot of tutoring and that sort of thing in universities goes on by PhD students, so there is some flexibility, and that will vary from institution to institution.

Senator RHIANNON: I totally understand that range within institutions, but we have the variation in standards between institutions.

Prof. Saunders: I do not think they are variations in standards. We are talking about the equivalence of a variety of different experiences.

Senator RHIANNON: Okay, I will have a think about that one. Are these standards meant to apply to all staff, including those employed on a casual basis?

Prof. Saunders: Yes, they are. But one has to be realistic—for example, students studying in professional courses, say, in the health sciences, will often be tutored in the clinical experience by tutors who do not have postgraduate qualifications but have lots of professional experience.

Senator RHIANNON: In an earlier comment I think you were talking about 'risk based and proportionate', that they came out of the review.

Prof. Saunders: No, 'risk based and proportionate' is in our legislation. Senator RHIANNON: Yes, it is. I thought so. Going back to the numbers: you spoke about how it has

reduced the 'scope and scale'—that was the term that you used when you spoke earlier. Is that correct? Prof. Saunders: Yes. Senator RHIANNON: Obviously, when you hear about the reduction in numbers that illustrates that.

Therefore, reduced scope and scale, less work is being done, but you are saying that it is concentrating on certain areas. Ms Paul, you said that it is a refocus of the work—that was the word you used?

Ms Paul: It may have been. What I was talking about was the fact that the— Senator RHIANNON: It was. Ms Paul: Yep, that is probably true. The work that TEQSA now undertakes arises from the former

government's review into TEQSA undertaken by Val Braithwaite and Kwong Lee Dow, which had many recommendations which this government accepted, including a move to the risk based and proportionate approach. What I was talking about when I used the word refocus was—I think I said narrower focus—to a narrower focus on its core business and, for example, moving away from doing their thematic reviews which they had been doing before. Some activities ceased—we have moved away from them—but of course Professor



Saunders can talk about this more than I. The remaining activities were recommended by the review to be done in a more risk based approach, which is what Professor Saunders has been describing: some providers might have only seven standards supply; some might have all 42 in that particular area.

Senator RHIANNON: My question was specifically about that word refocus that you used. Clearly, refocus means that you are going back to a focus one had before. With everything I have heard, even your answer then, you seem to be trying to move away from the word refocus, so I ask you: will you withdraw the word refocus so we are not misled? The professor's description, as it has been before, is that it is about reducing the scope and scale. That is not refocusing.

Ms Paul: Okay, I am happy to withdraw if you think it is confusing. Senator RHIANNON: It is not what I think; if you are to be accurate, surely that is not the word that is

consistent with what has happened and what the professor has just described. Ms Paul: Well, I have withdrawn it. Senator RHIANNON: Thank you. Senator KIM CARR: Could I turn to the question of homeopathy—one of my favourite topics, as you know,

Professor. I would like to deal with a specific case. I understand that Dr Ken Harvey has sought by FOI matters relating to the reaccreditation report for homeopathy offered by ParaPharm in Western Australia. Do you have any detail of that matter?

Prof. Saunders: I have some detail of that matter, yes. Senator KIM CARR: As I understand it, there are two degree courses offered in homeopathy, one in Western

Australia by ParaPharm, and there is one on the east coast as well, is there? Prof. Saunders: By the Australian College of Natural Medicine, yes. Senator KIM CARR: Is it the case that the NHMRC has released a finding of the committee reviewing

homeopathy which has found that there is no good evidence to actually support the discipline? Prof. Saunders: That is correct. Senator KIM CARR: Do take any note of that? Prof. Saunders: Absolutely, I take note of that. It was conducted by somebody I have a great deal of respect

for. Senator KIM CARR: Who is that? Can you refresh my memory. Prof. Saunders: Paul Glasziou, from Bond University. Senator KIM CARR: There was no trick question there. Prof. Saunders: It was a very thorough examination of the evidence at hand. Senator KIM CARR: There was also a committee chaired by the Chief Medical Officer. Is that the case? Prof. Saunders: I think that relates to something else. I think it relates to the funding of these. Senator KIM CARR: The Review of the Australian Government Rebate on Private Health Insurance for

Natural Therapies. Prof. Saunders: Yes, that is correct. Senator KIM CARR: Not an unrelated topic, I would have thought. I understand that the report of the

committee chairman has been with the government for some while. Are you aware of that. Prof. Saunders: No, I am not aware of the delays or whether there have been delays. Senator KIM CARR: I understand the two homeopathy programs that I have referred to were in fact

accredited by state authorities originally. Is that the case? Prof. Saunders: Originally; that is correct, yes. Senator KIM CARR: They are now up for reaccreditation with your agency. Is that correct? Prof. Saunders: Yes. Senator KIM CARR: In fact, the Western Australian course was up for reaccreditation at the end of last

year— Prof. Saunders: Yes. Senator KIM CARR: and I understand the Sydney course—the Endeavour college course—comes up for

reaccreditation in a couple of months time.



Prof. Saunders: Yes. Senator KIM CARR: What is the process you will be using to reaccredit this particular program? Prof. Saunders: It is the process that we would use for all course accreditations. It is a mixture of our own

assessment as well as sending the courses to external experts. Senator KIM CARR: How many external experts? Prof. Saunders: It would depend, but in general terms we would send a course to two experts. If there is a

suite of courses we might actually send it to more experts than that. Sometimes we do not use experts at all. Senator KIM CARR: If you do not use experts at all, who does the assessment? Prof. Saunders: We sometimes have internal expertise, the background of people within TEQSA; sometimes

we are assessing the fifth course in a single field of, say, a business field and we have confidence in what the external experts have said previously.

Senator KIM CARR: Am I correct in saying that while a course is under the process of reaccreditation it is entitled to continue?

Prof. Saunders: That is correct. Senator KIM CARR: Have you made a decision in regard to the Western Australian course? Prof. Saunders: No, we haven't. We are in the process of making that decision, and it would not really be

appropriate for me to say much more. Senator KIM CARR: No, but you have not made it. Prof. Saunders: We have not made a decision on that. Senator KIM CARR: And the provider can continue while that process is underway. Prof. Saunders: That is correct. Senator KIM CARR: The second course—I have a date here of 2 April 2015 for reaccreditation—have you

commenced the process for that? Prof. Saunders: I would have to take that question on notice. The submission usually has to be made six

months prior to the expiry of the date, so yes we would have at least received that. Senator KIM CARR: So it is a reasonable expectation that that has commenced as well. Are there any

courses in alternative therapies that you are examining at the moment? Prof. Saunders: At the moment, we have courses from Study Group Australia. To my knowledge, that is the

only other application coming from providers we have not already mentioned. Senator KIM CARR: How many students are involved in Study Group? Prof. Saunders: I would have to take that question on notice. Senator KIM CARR: That is based where—in Melbourne? Prof. Saunders: I would have to take that question on notice. I think Study Group has multiple campuses, but

I will have to take that on notice. Mr Griew: You may be interested that there are also nine complementary medicine degrees at universities. Senator KIM CARR: Yes, there are some issues there too, I am sure. When will you get to look at those? Prof. Saunders: If it is relevant, we will look at those at the time of reregistration. Senator KIM CARR: Dr Ken Harvey has sought advice from you in regard to the re-accreditation report. Is

that correct? Prof. Saunders: The re-accreditation of? Senator KIM CARR: ParaPharm in Western Australia. Prof. Saunders: That is correct. Senator KIM CARR: Did the document provided back to Dr Harvey under FOI include the name of the

external reviewer—who, I am told, is a naturopath—used by TEQSA? Prof. Saunders: The response to Dr Harvey had to be considered in the context that this was an application

that was still under assessment. There had to be processes that were fair to the provider. There were also commercial-in-confidence considerations in that what we were considering was the intellectual property of the provider, and there were a range of other matters that had to be taken into account. So the material released to Dr Harvey was very limited.



Senator KIM CARR: How long would you sit on a report of this type? Prof. Saunders: We do not sit on reports. Senator KIM CARR: When was the report finalised? Prof. Saunders: We have not finalised the report for this particular provider. As I said, this is a process that

is ongoing. It would not be appropriate for me to talk about any particular stages. Senator KIM CARR: But you did provide Dr Harvey with a document concerning the process that TEQSA

was using, including the name of the external reviewer? Prof. Saunders: Yes. Senator KIM CARR: You have indicated that you are mindful of the NHMRC review? Prof. Saunders: Yes. Senator KIM CARR: Have you adopted a policy of prioritising the commercial interests of private providers

over the public's right to know what the bases of accreditation decisions are? Prof. Saunders: Absolutely not. Senator KIM CARR: Why is that? Prof. Saunders: We believe there needs to be a balance between considering the interests of both the provider

and the public. All our FOI decisions are based on those considerations. Senator KIM CARR: That is in regard to the FOI decision. I am asking you in regard to your accreditation

process. Prof. Saunders: We do not take commercial considerations into account at all in assessing a course or a

provider. As I said, the assessment is done against the standards. The standards refer to matters to do with financial viability but not to the commercial interests of the provider.

Senator KIM CARR: In regard to the re-accreditation of ParaPharm, why did only a single person—not a panel—undertake the review of the course?

Prof. Saunders: That relates to a technical issue with regard to the FOI request. Senator KIM CARR: How does that work? Prof. Saunders: We were assessing a number of courses. Dr Harvey asked for information about one course.

So we gave Dr Harvey the relevant information about one particular course, but we had other people involved in the assessment of the other complementary—

Senator KIM CARR: The other things at the institution—I see. Can you indicate to me why it was that your expert witness—who I would prefer not to name at this point, but you know the person I am referring to. Is that right, Professor? You are aware of the details of that expert—

Prof. Saunders: I would have to take that on notice. I have seen the report; I just cannot carry the name of the person in my head at the moment.

Senator KIM CARR: All right. Can you indicate what was the basis of the appointment of that particular individual—who as I say, is a naturopath—to examine the operations of this particular college.

Prof. Saunders: That person would be on the TEQSA register or we would have had advice from people who were on the TEQSA register of experts as to who we might approach in this particular circumstance. Finding assessors who are experts in the field of complementary medicine is not easy. We have a range of people that we can go to. We have taken steps in the last six months to try and expand the range of people that we can choose to do those assessments, and I think I will leave it at that. If I may make a comment about the whole issue here—

Senator KIM CARR: I look forward to your comments. Prof. Saunders: I think it is important that we separate out assessment against a set of educational standards

against the recognition, registration and regulation of clinical practitioners. Unfortunately, or fortunately, TEQSA has no role to play in the latter. What we have to do is take a course and look at it from the point of view of the standards, and nowhere in the standards does it talk about the need for material or the course to be scientifically based. Nowhere does it have any content-specific standards. What it says is that the body of knowledge upon which this is drawn has to be coherent and it has to actually have scholarship associated with it, and there are other standards in there about intellectual inquiry of students and promoting those sorts of critical appraisal skills and the like. So, when we apply the standards to something like a course in homeopathy, we are not asking the question as to whether the science or the clinical outcomes of homeopathy are appropriate. What we are asking is: does this course position homeopathy in the field such that students who are studying this understand that there is



a controversy and that there is strong evidence that it is in fact not an effective clinical regime? We are expecting students to understand the criticisms of homeopathy, not just simply to study in a modular sort of way the tenets of homeopathy. We would use our judgement applying those standards to the accreditation of courses like this.

Senator KIM CARR: Yes. Thank you for that. Do I take it from that there is a degree of discomfort about the way in which this now operates?

Prof. Saunders: No, I do not think there is. If there is discomfort, it would be the same discomfort about accrediting bachelors of theology. We use educational standards about the experience of the student, the coherence of the course, the build, the framework, the learning outcomes that are being achieved and whether it fits with the Australian Qualifications Framework. These are educational standards.

Senator KIM CARR: In terms of publishing the accreditation report for homeopathy, what are you doing about that? When will you be publishing this report?

Prof. Saunders: What we do is that, once we have done our assessment, we then publish the decision of the assessment. We would then be declaring whether or not the assessment has led to a reaccreditation of the course; if it is reaccredited, what are the conditions that are applied on that course; and whether the course has been accredited for a maximum period of 7 years or a shorter period of time. And there is a public notice that we always publish as a part of the national register that actually explains why we have taken those decisions.

Senator KIM CARR: Yes. Now the difficulty here is—and this particular issue has been experienced with regard to ESOS registration and it has been experienced with regard to VET registration—in this particular case, with students that are being enrolled in 2015—given that I take it you have had this process underway for at least six months?

Prof. Saunders: Yes. Senator KIM CARR: I take it that you must have completed your work, your— Prof. Saunders: We are in the final stages of discussion with the provider about provisional findings, yes. Senator KIM CARR: So what do they do about enrolments for 2015? Prof. Saunders: They are free to make enrolments until a decision is taken by TEQSA, and if the decision— CHAIR: Senator Carr— Senator KIM CARR: I will just— CHAIR: Senator Ruston has one quick question. Senator KIM CARR: Yes, sure. My concern, though, is that I take it you have actually decided to allow them

to continue? Prof. Saunders: No, we have not made that decision at all. Senator KIM CARR: So what do you do with the students, then, if you choose to close them down? Prof. Saunders: Then they have to have a planned and supervised teach-out of that. Now that would require

them to transfer their students to another provider— Senator KIM CARR: There is only one other provider. Prof. Saunders: Yes. CHAIR: All right, can we continue this after dinner if you have more questions for TEQSA, Senator Carr?

Senator Ruston, you have a quick question? Senator RUSTON: Just one. CHAIR: But I will just double check. Sorry, Minister? Hello, Minister? We just have a question from Senator

Ruston. Senator Birmingham: Sorry, Chair. I was just confirming one point there with Professor Saunders about the

course that Senator Carr was asking about the provider for. Being a bachelor course, it is a multi-year course. So the phase-out-type provisions that Professor Saunders was just talking about would have had to apply regardless of the timing of when a decision is made, where a decision has been made in that type of area.

Senator RUSTON: Professor Saunders, I am just wondering in the discussions about the accreditation whether there were any alternative medicine courses already being offered at public universities?

Prof. Saunders: Yes, certainly. Alternative medicine courses are offered by a number of public universities: Central Queensland University, Charles Sturt University, Macquarie University, Murdoch University, RMIT, Southern Cross University, University of New England, University of Technology Sydney and the University of



Western Sydney. Chiropractic is the most common course that is being taught in the public universities, but as well as chiropractic they cover naturopathy, traditional Chinese medicine, acupuncture, osteopathy and western herbal medicine, and a couple of those public universities offer a Bachelor of Health Sciences with a generic complimentary medicine stream.

Senator RUSTON: And one assumes that the process of accreditation is exactly the same? Prof. Saunders: They are self-accrediting institutions, so they would have put these courses through their own

proper academic governance processes. Senator RUSTON: Okay, thank you, Professor Saunders. Senator KIM CARR: I would like to ask you about Avondale College of Higher Education. Prof. Saunders: Yes. Senator KIM CARR: TEQSA has provided Avondale College with self-accrediting status, is that correct? Prof. Saunders: That is correct. Senator KIM CARR: The power to grant self-accrediting status on one or more levels of study in one or

more broad fields of study—is that the case? Prof. Saunders: There is a set of standards that applies to the authorising of self-accrediting authorities. There

are, in fact, a number of standards, in the order of 10— Senator KIM CARR: So with regards to this decision, what is the basis for which Avondale College is now

able to be self-accrediting in terms of broad fields of study? Is it all broad fields of study or specific areas? Prof. Saunders: No, all their current fields of study. Senator KIM CARR: All current? Prof. Saunders: Yes. And they have broad offerings. Senator KIM CARR: You have said that it meets the criteria set out in chapter 2, section 7 of the standards

frameworks. Is that correct? Prof. Saunders: Yes. Senator KIM CARR: How did you make that decision? Prof. Saunders: First of all, Avondale has been going for a long period of time, so it is a well-established

provider. We have had a lot of experience with Avondale over the last three years in terms of its courses; we must have seen in excess of 20 of their courses. So we actually know their academic governance arrangements, we know the quality of the monitoring of their student outcomes and the like. It is that accumulated knowledge over the last three years of working with Avondale—and recognising that, where they were falling a bit short of the mark, they were able to demonstrate that they took that on board and had appropriate mechanisms in place to self-improve—that, when they applied for re-registration and self-accrediting authority, we had confidence that they could be given that status.

Senator KIM CARR: Do you have any other applications before you for self-accreditation? Prof. Saunders: Yes, we do. We have three being actively considered at the moment. That assessment is

almost finished. And we are expecting a number of other providers to apply for self-accrediting status during this year.

Senator KIM CARR: What are the names of the three? Prof. Saunders: I will have to take that on notice, I am sorry. Senator KIM CARR: These are not confidential, are they? Prof. Saunders: Sorry? Senator KIM CARR: There is no reason why these would be confidential? Prof. Saunders: No, the reason I take it on notice is that I cannot tell you the names offhand. Senator KIM CARR: It is just a memory question. Prof. Saunders: Yes, it is a memory question. Senator KIM CARR: There is no other issue. Are you required to provide public notice of an intention to

grant self-accreditation? Prof. Saunders: You mean in terms of a heads-up, letting people know? No, we are not. Senator KIM CARR: There is no requirement in the act?



Prof. Saunders: There is no requirement in the act for us to go out for public consultation before we grant self-accrediting authority.

Senator KIM CARR: Avondale is the first time you have done this, isn't it? Prof. Saunders: It is the first time we have done it through this sort of thorough process. We did actually

grant self-accrediting authority to the overseas universities and Torrens University, which we inherited from the state government processes.

Senator KIM CARR: But they were established institutions with an international reputation; is that correct? Prof. Saunders: The two overseas universities, yes. Torrens is, as you know, a branch of Laureate. Senator KIM CARR: Yes. Surely, it is arguable that this is an entirely different circumstance? Prof. Saunders: Yes, it is. We applied the process really from go to whoa here in terms of that assessment. Senator KIM CARR: Is this a disallowable instrument? Ms Paul: I do not think so. Mr Griew: I do not believe it is, no. Ms Paul: We will check it out. Senator KIM CARR: You said 'a number of others'. Are you able to indicate how many others you expect? Prof. Saunders: As I said, we have three underway and we are expecting possibly two or three more by the

end of the year. Senator KIM CARR: Right. That obviously requires more attention, I would say. Thank you. CHAIR: Thank you very much, Senator Carr. The committee now stands suspended till approximately 7.30

pm. Proceedings suspended from 18:23 to 19:32 Australian Skills and Quality Authority

[19:32] CHAIR: I welcome ASQA. It is lovely to have you here. Do you have an opening statement? Mr Robinson: No. CHAIR: Excellent. We will go straight to questions. Senator KIM CARR: Mr Robinson, are you aware of the press release issued today by the Victorian Minister

for Training and Skills, Mr Steve Herbert, with the title 'The Victorian government disqualifies unfit employers from hiring automotive apprentices'?

Mr Robinson: I am not aware of that release. Senator KIM CARR: This relates to the investigation of the Victorian Registration and Qualifications

Authority into low-quality training of apprentices in the automotive industry. Are you aware of that? Mr Robinson: I was not aware of that, no. Senator KIM CARR: The investigation says that eight employers have been disqualified from hiring

apprentices and 99 contracts have been cancelled or have ceased voluntarily. Are you aware of that? Mr Robinson: This is part of the apprenticeship side of the Victorian government's role in monitoring the

quality of the apprenticeship system. It falls outside of our sphere. If they had concerns about particular nationally regulated RTOs in the process then they would notify us and we would take appropriate action. But this relates to their administration of the apprenticeship system in Victoria, I believe.

Senator KIM CARR: I see. They are talking about: • poor supervision of apprentices • inappropriate work tasks or facilities • limited evidence of training, including a lack of contact with the registered training organisation … That would be your province, would it not?

Mr Robinson: I believe from what you are saying that they are looking at the way the contract of training has been administered by those employers. Employers have certain obligations under those contracts of training, and it sounds from what you are saying that they have concerns about whether those employers were fulfilling those obligations—like having qualified supervisors and making sure they get the correct training for the apprenticeship.



Senator KIM CARR: I see. Senator Birmingham: Just to be clear, Senator Carr, this is a media release issued by the Victorian minister,

Minister Herbert, today, did you say? Senator KIM CARR: That is right. Senator Birmingham: And any accompanying documents, or just the media release? Senator KIM CARR: I have some accompanying documents. Senator Birmingham: Are they documents that might be publicly available to the rest of us? Senator KIM CARR: No, not yet. Senator Birmingham: Right. Helpful! Senator KIM CARR: We will see. So you do not look at whether or not apprentices are released for formal

training or they are not being paid for attending training? Mr Robinson: The supervision of the apprenticeship scheme is the responsibility of state government

authorities in the training area. Senator KIM CARR: Are you investigating any RTOs or VET providers for low-quality training similar to

that inquiry undertaken by the Victorian— Mr Robinson: We are investigating a lot of providers in relation to low-quality training. Most of the providers

who provide apprenticeship training also provide other training, and we do not make a particular distinction between their apprenticeship training and their other VET. When we look at providers, we look across the board at their operations, but we always have a considerable number of RTOs in our sights at any one time.

Senator KIM CARR: You have been allocated an additional $68 million. Is that right? Mr Robinson: Yes. Senator KIM CARR: What is that being used for? Mr Robinson: Some $55 million of it is for not going to full cost recovery of fees. The government has made

a decision that, instead of going to full cost recovery, as was the original intention when ASQA was established by COAG, we would move to a more risk based regulatory approach and do away with some of the transactional based regulatory functions that we were carrying out as a matter of course. The amount allocated to avoiding that—not going to full cost recovery, not putting the fees up—was $55 million over the next four years, which is the bulk of that additional $68 million.

There were also some amounts in that budget increase to run programs around better educating RTOs about their obligations under the standards. We ran a lot of sessions in October and November last year for the RTO world about the new standards that are coming in on 1 April. We had over 4,500 people attend those sessions around the country, getting people equipped to run the new standard. So there was $8.5 million to run initiatives like that, and there is also about $5 million over four years for the capital budget of the organisation. We are developing our IT system to enable RTOs to have a more streamlined experience in lodging their applications, to be able to track where they are up to and all those sorts of things.

Senator KIM CARR: What is your relationship with the National Training Complaints Hotline? Mr Robinson: When the National Training Complaints Hotline get complaints in, they refer them to various

agencies, depending on what the nature of the complaint is. Some of them get referred to ASQA where they fall in our jurisdiction. Others might get referred to a state authority if they relate, for example, to a TAFE issue or some such matter where the states need to have a look at the complaint. So we get some of those complaints, but they do not all come to us. We also have a well-developed complaints system at ASQA, and the bulk of the complaints we have received so far have come to us directly.

Senator Birmingham: The National Training Complaints Hotline was a COAG Industry and Skills Council agreement, so it is something agreed to by all of the states and territories as well as the Commonwealth. Essentially, I have described it as best acting as a triage service so that people do not need to try to work out whether it is the Victorian regulator you just referred to that they need to direct their complaint to, or whether it is ASQA or some other entity. They can ring a single hotline that triages the complaints to the relevant organisation.

Senator KIM CARR: So how many referrals have you had, Mr Robinson? Mr Robinson: I believe only a small number of complaints have come through so far. The department may

have information about the exact number, but I believe there have not been more than 60 or 70 in that sphere. We get about 1,400 complaints a year lodged with us, including prior to this service being established. So a lot of



people are now used to raising complaints about RTOs directly with us, and we also pass some of those complaints on to other relevant bodies, as well as dealing with them ourselves where that is appropriate.

Senator KIM CARR: I am told that Victoria and New South Wales are getting some 600 or 700 complaints a year, in those two states. I do not have a figure for Queensland yet but I understand that similar sorts of numbers are coming through Queensland. That is substantially more than the numbers that you are registering through this hotline. How would you account for that?

Mr Robinson: I am not sure what complaints they are, Senator, that you are referring to with the states. They could be about their TAFE institutes or—

Senator Birmingham: Senator Carr, the hotline has been operational since 19 January. Senator KIM CARR: I see. Senator Birmingham: So it has a relatively— Senator KIM CARR: So you are saying it is too early to tell? Senator Birmingham: That is right. I understand it has received approximately 68 complaints so far. So,

obviously, until— Senator KIM CARR: That is consistent with the 60 or 70. But the consumer affairs people do a lot of this in

the states. Is that true? Mr Robinson: The consumer affairs people also receive complaints from people about all sorts of businesses,

including training or— Senator KIM CARR: My advice is that this is specifically training. Mr Robinson: Yes. We— Senator KIM CARR: It is of that order, the 600 to 700 order. Mr Robinson: We have certainly had discussions with the consumer affairs authorities, including the ACCC,

about that—and some of the VET standards, as you know, relate to what students are required to be told by an RTO and do go to matters of student protection, and marketing. So, sometimes, if someone is in breach of our standards, they are also in breach of Australian consumer law.

Senator KIM CARR: I am sorry; I mislead you before. It is 600 in New South Wales and 900 in Victoria. Mr Robinson: Right, yes. These are the consumer affairs complaints about training? Senator KIM CARR: Yes, specifically about training. Mr Robinson: And they do refer some of those on to us and raise issues with us. We have discussions with

them and work with them where we can as well. So there is actually quite a comprehensive system in place for people to be able to make complaints about training issues. As I say, we get about 1,400 a year.

Senator KIM CARR: Is it a matter of concern to you that there are so many complaints? Mr Robinson: It certainly is. The whole VET regulatory reform strategy is about taking the information that

comes through from complaints and other intelligence from the industry and using that to address poor-quality RTO provision at a much faster rate than we would if we had continued with the system that we were using before, where the placement of an application to get re-registered or the like would be the main trigger for our regulatory scrutiny. We are now wanting to re-prioritise our work to deal more quickly with the worst-quality providers, which I think everyone agrees is the biggest need in the sector, actually, in terms of what regulatory work needs to be about. We have certainly had strong support for this approach from the main business organisations and users of the training systems. They see the issue as really important. Just under half of all the complaints we get come from students, and students are another major group who have a real interest in this work.

Senator Birmingham: And, Senator Carr, I think the figures you quote are concerning. I would not want to play that down at all. I do think it is important to always keep in mind the scale of the vocational education and training sector, as well. Estimates are that across Australia last year around three million Australians were involved in some form of vocational education and training—around 1½ million in some type of publicly subsidised trainings. Whilst those figures of complaints are concerning just in their raw number, we do need to appreciate that it is a very large public engagement activity of, as I say, around three million and keep in some sense of proportion the number of complaints.

Senator KIM CARR: If I think about the number of school kids and the number of university students we have in this country, you would not get anywhere near that number of complaints—900 in Victoria alone.



Senator Birmingham: It would be curious to know how many complaints schools and education departments receive during the course of the year. I suspect there would be quite a lot. But, as I said, I do not want to downplay the significance of that. For the benefit of anybody who might be listening or reading the Hansard, I just want to make sure that they can at least keep a sense of proportion about it.

Senator KIM CARR: Where would a student go to find out if a training provider was reputable or was under current investigation?

Mr Robinson: We do not publicise the results of our regulatory work until they are concluded. If we took action to actually deregister a RTO or provide another sanction on them, that is published on our website. But while an investigation is underway, or the work is not completed, obviously under our act we are not permitted to publish the results of something until it has concluded. Our regulatory work looks to check compliance against the standards that RTOs are required to meet when issues are raised, or concerns are raised, about that compliance. People need to be meeting those standards to retain their registration. But our regulatory work does not, for example, give a Michelin star rating to each RTO about how good they are.

Senator KIM CARR: But it does raise the issue about how you know about that if you are a student seeking to enrol. There is no early warning system. Do you have to wait until you read about it in the newspaper? How do you find out about it?

Mr Robinson: The RTOs put information on their websites about their organisations. Senator KIM CARR: Entirely reliable that, isn't it! Mr Robinson: There is not a system, as you are suggesting, that really gives a comprehensive rating of quality

for every provider. That has been done independently. Senator Birmingham: Again, it is an issue that I am acutely aware of—that is of how we create a more

informed market for student choice and for students to decide and compare providers and courses. Some of the work around the MySkills website provide an opportunity there. Ultimately, we really need better information to help provide that informed student market. The total VET activity reporting is, in part, about trying to ensure we have data in the future. Unfortunately, in a range of areas in this sector I believe we are playing catch up. That is because of poor structures put in place to start with—and many of those, of course, were during the life of the previous government. But there is also, of course, a lot of state government activity in this space. Ultimately, though, I do not discount the issue you raise about where and how students can make an informed choice. Total VET activity reporting, the unique student identifier—all of that will help to provide a better basis of information for us to construct the type of data, knowledge and information that students can, hopefully, rely upon in future.

Senator KIM CARR: Between 2011-12 and 13-14, fee and fine income has almost trebled. It has risen from $7.1 million to $19.6 million. Would you agree with those figures?

Mr Robinson: Let me just pull that information out. In 2011-12, the fee income that we raised was $7 million; it rose to $19 million in 2013-14, and it is stabilising now at around $20 million this year. One of the main reasons why the rise was quite dramatic—there were two reasons—was that, in the first year of ASQA's operation, Queensland did not enter the system until 1 July the following year. So, in the first full financial year, ASQA commenced with New South Wales, those parts of Victoria and WA that we did have jurisdiction over, the ACT and the Northern Territory. Tasmania and South Australia came on board during that financial year, and then Queensland came on board right at the very end, or the very beginning of the next financial year. Part of that was the build-up of ASQA's jurisdiction.

The second issue was that it was decided when ASQA was first established and was to move to full cost recovery in its fees that, because these fees were higher than what states had been charging, with the possible exception of New South Wales, they would be introduced in a number of tranches. It started off with some fees for 1 July 2011. Some new fees were bought in in July or August 2013, and there was to have been a further rise to go to full cost recovery by now, but that was averted by the decision of the government in October last year to not require us to go to full cost recovery fees and to, indeed, give a budget allocation for that half of ASQA's next budget.

Senator KIM CARR: That covers the fees issue. What about fines? Mr Robinson: We have not levied any fines. Senator KIM CARR: None? Mr Robinson: No. The legislative instrument for doing that is nearing completion. Our regulatory sanctions

to date have been around licences or registration being revoked, or conditions being put on them, or requirements being made of the RTOs to address certain issues.



Senator KIM CARR: Is it because you did not have a regulatory instrument that you did not impose any fines?

Mr Robinson: There has been a considerable development over this process. This part of the system was the least developed part of the act when it was first introduced, and I think the range of circumstances where fines might be applied will be somewhat limited, because mostly you have to look at the regulation in the context of what is happening with each RTO. Our main purpose is to make sure either that they address the deficiencies in meeting the standards or that they are not allowed to continue not meeting those standards. That has been the focus to date, but there is work being done to bring the fines part of the process to a conclusion, which is, I believe, going to be happening fairly soon.

Senator KIM CARR: Do you think your fee structure has had any impact on the number of new providers seeking registration?

Mr Robinson: The fees we charge relate to well under half a per cent of the total revenue to the sector. Even though they have gone up a bit—quite a bit in some cases—they are still a relatively low part of the total business cost of the organisations. Since we started, the total number of RTOs in Australia has gone down by over 300 RTOs. But we have had over 1,000 applications to register new RTOs since we commenced operation, and we have approved around 80 per cent of those. There have been a lot of new RTOs entering the market since we came; there have also been about 500 RTOs that have ceased operating and withdrawn, in gross terms, but it has had a net impact of a reduction overall of about 300-odd RTOs since we commenced our operations.

Senator KIM CARR: How many applications were rejected in 2013-14? Mr Robinson: Let me just get those figures for you. In 2013-14 we had a total of 7,600 applications, and we

rejected 12.2 per cent of the applications in the year 2013 for initial registration, we rejected 3.5 per cent of the existing RTOs applications for re-registration and we rejected 1.4 per cent of the applications to add new courses to the scope of registration.

Senator KIM CARR: So can you give me those in number terms? Mr Robinson: Yes, rejections in 2013-14 were 44 initial RTO applications, 33 renewal-of-registration

applications and 103 change-of-scope applications. Senator KIM CARR: Thank you. What were the main reasons for your rejections? Mr Robinson: For example, when we reject the registration of an existing RTO, we have been through quite a

process with them. They would get an audit report from us, looking at where the areas of noncompliance with the standards were. They would have an opportunity to rectify those noncompliances. Then if they had failed to do so after that process we would not automatically reject their registration. It would be about being noncompliant with the bulk of the standards, it would be about serious noncompliance and it would be about very poor-quality training and assessment. That is at the higher end of our regulatory sanctions.

Senator KIM CARR: So the 33 applicants—did you say 33? Mr Robinson: Yes. Senator KIM CARR: They are very serious then, are they? Mr Robinson: Yes, and we have had around 134 of those since we started in 2011. So these are the RTOs

that— Senator KIM CARR: What sorts of things are 'very serious'? Mr Robinson: They have teaching staff who are not qualified, they are not following the requirements of

training packages in relation to how they have put their training program together and they have very poor assessment processes that are not leading to valid assessments of the students in being able to properly demonstrate that they have the competencies that they should be getting from those programs. Quite frequently they will be involved in sharp marketing practices. I would suggest to you that there is a group of RTOs—and they are a small number—where training and assessment are not high on their list of priorities. They are interested in collecting money off people and issuing them with them a diploma or a certificate III, but you could not possibly construe their process as having a quality training system. When we find RTOs like that we do take those actions.

Senator KIM CARR: How many audits were completed over the last two years? Mr Robinson: I can tell you that, just a moment. In 2013-14 we completed slightly over 1,500 audits, in

2012-13 almost 1,400 audits and we have done about 735 audits up to December, in this financial year. Senator KIM CARR: How many of those compliance orders were triggered by risk assessment?



Mr Robinson: I only have the figures for that over the full life of our operations—for the 3½ years. The compliance monitoring audits have triggered, to date, about six or seven per cent of the total number of audits. A further 2½ per cent have been triggered when we have had a complaint and done a compliance-monitoring audit as well. So roughly 8½ per cent, so far. But our new regulatory strategy is really about turning the main trigger of our regulatory scrutiny to risk assessment and market intelligence about concerns about providers and, of course, using that complaints data. We are talking to the state authorities as well, as I said, so that we can make sure that we get that information and use that as the trigger for really applying scrutiny on RTOs. We are moving away from applications being the main trigger for regulatory scrutiny to date to a system where risk assessment and marketing intelligence and also the track record of an RTO become the crucial things for determining—

Senator KIM CARR: What was your percentage of audit generated by complaint, whether it be industry intelligence or whatever?

Mr Robinson: Up until now it has only been about 2½ per cent. Senator KIM CARR: And you want to move that? Mr Robinson: We want to move that to be the main factor. Senator KIM CARR: Main; righto. Mr Robinson: Yes. The marketing intelligence and the risk assessment together are the main factors of

turning our attention to where we need to apply the most scrutiny. We have been a regulator that has not been afraid of making strong and tough decisions when we felt the RTO performances warranted that, but we have been using the application as the main trigger for when we might apply that scrutiny. The new regulatory approach is really about being more sophisticated in analysing risk and using risk assessment, marketing intelligence and complaints information to trigger that scrutiny. Of course, the new total VET activity data will add a big new dimension to our work as that starts to come on stream this year.

Senator Birmingham: Senator Carr, the legislation that was introduced into the House of Representatives today has a key element related to this ambition, which is to extend the registration period for RTOs from five years to seven years. This therefore means that the requirement upon ASQA for that reregistration audit falls less frequently and more resources from ASQA can be dedicated to the types of other audit activities that Mr Robinson has just been speaking about but are, of course, seen to be much more efficient and effective in terms of, as much as anything else, if I can use this phrase, 'catching people off guard' rather than them knowing full well when their registration is coming up for renewal and that they have to have their house in order at that particular point in time.

Senator KIM CARR: Do compliance managers still request audits? Mr Robinson: Our audits are initiated by our compliance management groups around the country, and they

are based on the business rules that we put in place. Senator KIM CARR: So they follow through on those. Mr Robinson: Yes. Senator KIM CARR: How many audits are you planning for the next two years? Mr Robinson: We would certainly be planning to do something in the order of 1,500 or more audits each year

and, as I say, as we roll out our new regulatory strategy, which is focusing on risk and complaints information and the like. We would be wanting to rapidly transform the history that we have had of most audits being triggered by an application to one where most of those audits get triggered by the complaints we get in and the risk analysis that we are doing.

Senator KIM CARR: What does an audit involve? Mr Robinson: Most of the audits we do involve a site visit to the RTO by at least two auditors usually. Before

the audit, they develop an audit plan to do with the standards that they are going to focus on and a sample of the training and assessment that the RTO is doing. Some of the RTOs have hundreds of programs, and so they will not necessarily audit all of those programs but they will audit a sample. They will have looked at the risk information that we currently have on the RTOs on file about their track record and areas of past concern and the like. So those sorts of factors will feature more heavily in the things which they follow up on and ask questions about. Sometimes we will sample students if we have had particular concerns raised about the way the RTO has been dealing with students. Sometimes we may ask employers. That is a rarer thing at this point but it does happen. Those sorts of additional steps would be used if we had reasons, like complaints, that we wanted to particularly check out. So the audits are a comprehensive look at the standards that RTOs are required to meet and



they particularly look at the quality of training and assessment; and, of course, the other area that is important in this is the student requirements.

Senator KIM CARR: Just refresh my memory: how many RTOs did you say there were in Australia? Mr Robinson: There are about 4,000 that ASQA regulates, and the total number as of 31 December is 4,573.

ASQA regulates 3,898. Senator KIM CARR: Okay. So you are looking at auditing over 25 per cent? Mr Robinson: Around that, yes. The number we do will also depend on the risk analysis we do. We are

moving away from auditing as a matter of course on many of the application processes to actually focusing in on the ones that are higher risk. We may do fewer but we do more thorough and extensive audits where we have got more intelligence about that RTO requiring an even deeper look than we might otherwise give it.

Senator KIM CARR: Okay. I asked before about the rights of students to know. What about the rights of a student to get a refund if they have actually been signed up by a dodgy provider, signed up with a big debt, and have fees and other charges outstanding? What recourse do those students have?

Mr Robinson: That is a good question. The standards for RTOs relate to RTOs not charging more than $1,500 in up-front fees unless they are in an approved scheme. There are only two that have been approved—there are three. There is the TPS, for overseas students—run by the Commonwealth—that all providers to overseas students must be in. Then, for domestic students, ACPET, the Australian Council for Private Education and Training, and TAFE Directors Australia both run schemes for their members which guarantee placement of students if there is a failure and the like or, if that is not possible, a refund of moneys they have paid. So they are allowed to collect more moneys, but only if they belong to that scheme. Those two schemes have been approved by ASQA as legitimate schemes to protect students. Otherwise, the standards—

Senator KIM CARR: They are various TASs, aren't they? They are known as TAS? Mr Robinson: That is the ACPET scheme, yes. The TDA one may have a similar name, and that has only

recently been approved because TDA has some non-TAFE members— Senator KIM CARR: They were required in legislation, if my memory serves me correctly. Mr Robinson: Yes, the state people— Senator KIM CARR: No, under ESOS. ESOS is the origin of that. It was a requirement at law to provide a

financial assurance scheme because so many of these colleges went belly up. Mr Robinson: Yes. The Commonwealth has taken over the overseas student— Senator KIM CARR: That is right. That is all very well. Mr Robinson: angle under the TPS. Senator KIM CARR: What about all the rest of them, because that does not cover the entire scope? Mr Robinson: The standards state that an RTO can only legitimately collect $1,500 up-front from a student.

If that RTO fails or if ASQA makes a decision to revoke the registration of that RTO, we liaise with various state officials and the like, and they put into place various arrangements to try and place the students elsewhere. Not every state does exactly the same thing, and the students do not have the same protection as they have under the TPS or the two schemes that we have approved from ACPET and TDA. But the standards are designed to require RTOs not to collect more than that amount so that the risk is minimised if they fail.

Senator KIM CARR: Sure, but that is up-front fees. There are a whole lot of fees associated with FEE-HELP, are there not?

Mr Robinson: There are debts that are accrued by people in VET FEE-HELP. Senator KIM CARR: Yes. How does a student get recovery on those? Mr Robinson: I might refer that question to— Senator KIM CARR: You do not provide any support on that matter? Mr Robinson: No. We have a role with VET FEE-HELP, but it is not this particular issue. Senator KIM CARR: Who is responsible for the refunding for students? Dr Banerjee: The responsibility for looking at refunds is the responsibility of the department. The specific

officers who look after the administration of the scheme are due attend under outcome 3. We can provide further information then.

Senator KIM CARR: But is it the case that students can get a refund?



Dr Banerjee: It depends on the circumstances. Senator KIM CARR: It always sounds very suspicious to me. Senator Birmingham: They can, Senator Carr. I would again say that the effectiveness of the refund

provisions is on my radar in terms of some of the issues that we might want to be having a look at to ensure that, for exactly the types of scenarios that you are eluding to, where students have not received the outcomes that they desire and that they deserve through a VET FEE-HELP loan, there are effective provisions in place. As Dr Banerjee has indicated, officials talk through the current arrangements and how they operate and, as you know from my public statements over recent weeks, there are a range of things I have indicated that I have some concerns about. In one small part, this issue around the effectiveness of refund provisions is something that I think we need have a look at.

Senator KIM CARR: What about the recovery of moneys that have been advanced by the Commonwealth to a bodgie RTO?

Ms Paul: We do have a compliance function to look at advances of Commonwealth funding to RTOs, and we are happy to talk about that under outcome 3 if you like.

Senator KIM CARR: What is your role with regard to— Mr Robinson: At ASQA, our role is about ensuring that the RTOs meet the standards that they are required to

meet in relation to their work with VET FEE-HELP or with other student recruitments. We are about to commence a strategy of looking at those RTOs that we have had the most complaints about in relation to VET FEE-HELP. We are going to audit all of those providers, and that work is commencing this week. We have identified 18 providers of VET FEE-HELP about whom we have had several or more complaints. We are going to look at each of those providers' operations to check that they have recruited students in the proper manner; that they have not exceeded; and that they have informed the students about the requirements of disclosure around the debt they are going to incur, the fees they are being charged and the training they are going to receive. Also, there is that important issue which has come up in some of the dispatches about possible VET FEE-HELP abuses, which relates to people being recruited inappropriately to a scheme so that the provider can qualify for VET FEE-HELP. By that we mean that they have not satisfied the requirements to go through and check that the students are being enrolled in programs that are appropriate to their needs—for example, someone who is functionally illiterate being put into a diploma program is probably the wrong level program and should not be attracting the VET FEE-HELP placement.

We are going to look at all of those issues. The new standards that start on 1 April for existing RTOs are going to significantly increase our teeth to deal with some of these issues with RTOs. They have greater specificity in what an RTO is required to inform a student about when they recruit them, and there are also greater requirements for the brokers they use and what they do in the student recruitment process in terms of disclosing information to students, including full disclosure upfront of the VET FEE-HELP debt that they are going to incur if they sign up to a course.

Senator KIM CARR: Are you able to tell me how many students were engaged with the 18 RTOs that you are looking at for VET FEE-HELP abuse?

Mr Robinson: Yes, we have had about 135 complaints about VET FEE-HELP and over 70 per cent of those complaints relate to these RTOs.

Senator KIM CARR: These 18? Mr Robinson: Yes, 18 RTOs. We are commencing that work this week. Senator KIM CARR: When will we be able to get a list of these? Mr Robinson: We will report on what we have found once we have done the work. We will be doing some

short notification or no notice audit work with this, so I do not want to give you the list today. But we will make known the findings of this work at the end of the day, including that there were some complaints, for example, that were not verified, if that is what we find.

Senator KIM CARR: It just seems to me what is happening in Victoria is a bit of a model here. You have to identify examples.

Mr Robinson: We will. Senator KIM CARR: And they have to be publicised. There are very substantial sums of money involved,

very substantial amounts of money the Commonwealth is paying to these organisations, and I suspect fraudulently. Will you take criminal prosecutions if necessary?



Mr Robinson: That could be an outcome. Senator KIM CARR: Are your required under your act to take criminal prosecutions? Mr Robinson: There are some cases where we have a criminal prosecution or we assist the police with an

investigation they are mounting about RTOs. Senator KIM CARR: So how often have you done that? Mr Robinson: There are quite a few. I will just get the numbers of investigations that are underway. There

has been one successful conviction so far, which occurred last year, over a person who was fraudulently issuing qualifications to people. We have been building that area of our operations up. I will get some figures for you in a moment about the prosecutions we have underway.

Senator KIM CARR: Thank you. Mr Robinson: Currently we are working on nine active formal investigations and there are a further six

matters that are under consideration in that space. Senator KIM CARR: I am told the standard— Senator Birmingham: Senator Carr, in relation to what we might describe as 'name and shame', I just asked

Mr Robinson about what has happened when they have found a problem and particularly if it has been a deregistration activity.

Mr Robinson: We do, of course, list every deregistration that has been completed. People have the right to make an appeal to the Australian Administrative Appeals Tribunal and there have been a small number of Federal Court cases over our work as well. But once all those appeal processes have been exhausted we list the sanctions and deregistrations on our website.

Senator KIM CARR: Minister, your press release yesterday referred to 23 audits. What are they for? Mr Robinson: It is the strategy I was just— Senator Birmingham: The 18 about whom complaints have been received, plus a further five VET FEE-

HELP providers. Mr Robinson can explain. Senator KIM CARR: Mr Robinson, how come you did not mention the five? Mr Robinson: Sorry, the other five are RTOs that have not had complaints about them. Senator KIM CARR: That you have found out about? Mr Robinson: We have picked some RTOs that have significant VET FEE-HELP programs that have not had

student complaints about them and we want to contrast and check the practices that they are undertaking in the way they recruit students to see if that will help us in the improvement of the system overall.

Senator KIM CARR: Your annual report for 2013-14 says that standard 15 relates to quality training and assessment and it indicates: … 75 per cent of existing providers were unable to demonstrate compliance with Standard 15. That is on page 26—75 per cent. It goes on: Even after the submission of rectification evidence, 21 per cent … remain unable to demonstrate compliance with this Standard. How could that possibly be the case?

Mr Robinson: Those 75 have the— Senator KIM CARR: Per cent. Is that right, 75 per cent? Mr Robinson: In our general regulatory work plus the work we have done in the three national strategic

reviews that have been released so far, across the system, poor assessment was a very significant concern which we identified in our regulatory work. That work has fed into a considerable beefing up of the assessment standards required of RTOs in the new standards that are coming out. That has been a direct result of work that we have fed into that process from this work. When the RTOs are given the 20 days to rectify the noncompliances that we find, most of them can. But we are still left with 21 per cent from that particular year, which did not achieve compliance with that standard. I have to say that, almost always when we find that an RTO has a noncompliance, it includes the assessment standard or it might only be the assessment standard they are not compliant with. So I think it is a considerable concern in the system that poor assessment, or assessment that is not nearly good enough, has been a commonplace occurrence. The good news is that, when those issues have been pointed out, most RTOs can, and do, rectify the problem.

Senator KIM CARR: Are you planning any more national strategic reviews?



Mr Robinson: We have three at the moment that are nearing completion. They are in the childcare sector, training in the security industries, and equine training, particularly with some of the health and safety issues that have been identified.

Senator KIM CARR: Given what they are finding in Victoria, you might want to look at automotive as well. Mr Robinson: There are always a couple of candidates for the next round. Senator KIM CARR: Thank you very much. Senator RHIANNON: Is it correct that even though a private RTO—like Vocation and a number of its

subsidiaries—might be registered in New South Wales, and therefore fall within ASQA's purview, if another subsidiary was based, say, in Victoria you would not have regulatory responsibility.

Mr Robinson: Yes. Vocation is a company which purchased a number of RTOs, as you may be aware. One of those RTOs, BAWM—about which considerable problems were found in Victoria by the Victorian government in their funding of them—was an RTO that was regulated by the Victorian regulator because it operated entirely within Victoria's state boundary and it did not have overseas students. If it is registered in Victoria but it has overseas students or operates across state borders, then we regulate them. We regulate the other RTOs in the Vocation group. The Victorian government raised with us concerns about another RTO in that group, Aspin. They were managed by the same people that managed BAWM. We did a lot of follow-up work with them and discovered considerable issues. We gave them an ultimatum around redressing the noncompliancess that we found, and they decided to close the RTO instead of fixing it up. It was, also, I believe required to repay moneys to the state government over training funding that it had given that RTO. We are looking at all the other RTOs in the Vocation group because of the concerns with those two RTOs. We have been auditing those. We have renewed the registration of one of those RTOs because we did not find the same kind of problems, but their management was a different group of people. Vocation is the owning company, but they run a number of discrete, different RTOs.

Senator RHIANNON: So you are saying that Vocation is the only one that you have found that has that cross-border problem that I just spoke about?

Mr Robinson: No. Vocation owned 10 RTOs. They closed three of them and merged them into their remaining seven. Six of those are regulated by us, and one was regulated by Victoria. Two more have closed, because of that regulation.

Senator Birmingham: Victoria and Western Australia are not— Senator RHIANNON: In the system? Senator Birmingham: There are provisions under which RTOs operating in Victoria and Western Australia

are covered by ASQA, but if they solely operate within Victoria or WA and do not have international students then they are not covered by ASQA. I am engaging in some conversations to see whether we can try to close some of those gaps. That is contingent upon cooperation of those state governments.

Senator RHIANNON: Can that be changed by law at a federal level? Or do you need your state colleagues to cover that? Is that a jurisdiction issue?

Mr Robinson: ASQA's legal situation required a referral of powers from the state parliaments to the Commonwealth to allow national regulation of VET to occur. There has been only a handful of previous occasions when state parliaments have referred powers to the Commonwealth—income tax powers in the war. The Commonwealth did not give them back after the war. In the case of this situation, the governments of Western Australia and Victoria did not refer those powers, but the Commonwealth laws nevertheless prevailed over the RTOs in those states that had overseas students or worked across state borders in referring states.

Senator Birmingham: But yes, we would need some referral from those states to close that irregularity that exists with some RTOs.

Senator RHIANNON: Thank you. It will be interesting to hear how your talks go. Does ASQA keep a record of fees being charged by providers for courses?

Mr Robinson: ASQA has no role in regulating the fees of providers or monitoring those fees. Senator RHIANNON: It was not about regulating; it was just about whether you keep a record of them. Mr Robinson: No. The only role we have is in relation to providers not charging more than $1,500 up-front or

at any one time in advance of the training being delivered by a provider. Senator RHIANNON: Wouldn't it be relevant to look at this data—in particular, fees for diplomas and

advanced diplomas that are deregulated, where there is no government subsidy?



Mr Robinson: I think that is a policy question. It is not really a question that relates to our current functions. Senator RHIANNON: Minister, do you have a comment on that? Dr Banerjee: Sorry—could you just repeat the question? Senator RHIANNON: What I was inquiring about was in the first instance a record of fees, and you have

said no. And I thought it would be relevant for that information to be collected, in particular fees for diplomas and advanced diplomas that are deregulated where there is no government subsidy. Isn't that important information that you need?

Dr Banerjee: At the moment the information that is collected in the fee-for-service market is not comprehensive. The NCVER, the body that looks at statistics for the VET sector, does, I believe, through some of its collections and surveys, collect some fee information, but it is not a comprehensive collection at the moment. My understanding is that the total VET activity collection that is currently underway will address some of that. I cannot go to the detail of whether or not it will collect a comprehensive picture of fees, but it will certainly collect a comprehensive picture of the activity that is underway in the private fee-for-service market.

Ms Paul: It has been an issue for many, many years. Naturally, why would an entirely private full-fee-charging service that does not receive public funding give data to the public collector?—the National Centre for Vocational Education Research, NCVER. But we are hoping that we are just about to crack that nut for the first time with the data collection that Dr Banerjee has just described.

Senator RHIANNON: But doesn't it go to the issue of standards? Senator Birmingham: In the circumstance of a provider offering a diploma or an advanced diploma who is

not receiving any public subsidy, while there are always questions of standards, of course in that circumstance the student is indeed paying up-front. In many ways I have greater concern about where providers are operating in the VET FEE-HELP space, which comes to taxpayer dollars but also means that the background checking that the student might be incentivised to do is diminished because they are not having to pay any up-front fees; they can all be put on VET FEE-HELP. So, while it is a gross generalisation to say this, I suspect that where it is purely a case of up-front fees being charged there may well be fewer quality issues than in the space where the consumer is not having to fork the money out up-front and therefore does not have as much incentive to be doing the checking in the first place.

Senator RHIANNON: Since ASQA's inception, how many instances of noncompliance have been found during your re-registration audits?

Mr Robinson: Senator Carr read out a statement before for one of those financial years where around 80 per cent of the RTOs we audited had at least one noncompliance at the initial audit. But after they had the opportunity of 20 days to rectify those issues, that turned into around 20 per cent remaining noncompliant. That figure for the last financial year has actually improved. It is now 15 per cent that are not compliant after rectification, and 85 per cent are compliant. So, we have identified a lot of noncompliances, but we also have a process in place to require the RTOs to fix those noncompliances or have some regulatory sanctions applied to them.

Senator RHIANNON: Those percentage figures you just gave: are they a percentage of what you investigate, or a percentage of the total?

Mr Robinson: They are a percentage of all the audits we have done, and we have done over 4,000 or them since we commenced.

Senator RHIANNON: What role does ASQA have in monitoring and auditing RTOs in Victoria that have access to VET FEE-HELP?

Mr Robinson: Of the people who have access to VET FEE-HELP, we would monitor those in Victoria who operated beyond the jurisdiction of the state of Victoria. Even though they are based in Victoria, we regulate those, and we regulate the RTOs that also have overseas students. So, we would regulate RTOs in Victoria or in that category. If they were not, they would be regulated by the Victorian regulator.

Senator RHIANNON: So, if they are just in Victoria, and no international students, you do not— Mr Robinson: But we do regulate I think around 55 per cent of all the RTOs in Victoria, and we regulate all

the big ones—the TAFEs and big private ones as well. Senator RHIANNON: How many providers does ASQA currently register that deliver courses in

hypnotherapy? Mr Robinson: I could not answer that question.



Senator RHIANNON: I have a few questions that you could maybe take on notice, or perhaps somebody has the figures here. How many providers do you register that have courses in hypnotherapy, reiki, life coaching and body-mind-soul coaching?

Mr Robinson: We would have to go and check the register as to which RTOs had those courses on their scope. We would have to take that one on notice.

Senator RHIANNON: Yes, if you could give us a breakdown for the four categories, that would be useful. Mr Robinson: Yes, we could give you the number of RTOs that have any one of those, and we could give

you the number that have each of those. Senator Birmingham: It might be useful to add on to that the level of qualifications associated with any of

those— Mr Robinson: Yes, we could say whether it was a cert III or a cert IV or whatever. Senator RHIANNON: Minister, you have spoken here about your concerns about the standards, and we are

also aware of some of your comments in the media. Could you give us a date for when you decided to instigate these crack audits, as some people are calling them?

Senator Birmingham: That was work that ASQA has been preparing for a while. Certainly since my appointment on 23 December I have become increasingly concerned and aware of some of the issues in relation to quality and some of the concerns about abuse of VET FEE-HELP. And from my very first discussion, Mr Robinson and I talked about those issues, and that has continued through all of our discussions. It is not me instructing or directing ASQA to undertake a crack audit or the like. It is an organic process out of ASQA's own concerns, my concerns and, to be fair, Minister Macfarlane's concerns that he had previously, noting that he had taken a number of steps to try to strengthen the standards and the regulations in the funding for ASQA to allow them to deal with the problems that were there—which, it is worth re-emphasising, essentially have all been inherited by this government.

Mr Robinson: In relation to the VET FEE-HELP issue, we have had only about 135 complaints so far since the start of 2013, when the VET FEE-HELP program commenced. The department has informed me that there are some 190,000 students on VET FEE-HELP, so it is an extremely small percentage of the overall number of students that have been on VET FEE-HELP. But we have been concerned about the nature of some fee issues that have been raised, about very poor student recruitment practices and deceptive and misleading student recruitment practices. So we think that, even though the overall number is not huge, some of the claimed and alleged abuses seem to be really quite serious. So we have been increasingly concerned, and we set up a group within ASQA late last year to pull together a more coherent strategy for us to go out and look at the providers that have got most of those complaints accruing to them so that we can check and see what is going on here—whether it is indicative of a wider systemic issue or is isolated to these sorts of instances—and what we can do to assist the department in its work to sort some of those issues out.

Senator RHIANNON: Could you just detail, when you are responding in that way, where you are taking your information from.

Mr Robinson: As I say, overall the complaints from students comprise 44 per cent of our complaints, so we get a lot of complaints from students. We get some from employers and the like. We monitor the media and some issues get raised through the media. We also liaise with a range of industry bodies and occupational regulators. We do hear about some of the issues that states might be concerned about, and we use that to frame our regulatory responses. As I was saying before, we are developing a new regulatory approach which is focused on drawing these sources of information together and using that to trigger our regulatory response. In a way, this VET FEE-HELP strategy is that kind of response. There have been these complaints out there, so we want to pull them together and have a good look.

Senator RHIANNON: If we asked you about all—some of them have been very serious and very alarming, as I am sure you are aware—of the reports in the media, can you then respond that you have investigated all of those, because there is so much detail; so much of your work is actually done already.

Mr Robinson: The RTOs that we are including in our crackdown, as we were calling it, are where there have been two or more complaints at any RTO; we are looking at those RTOs. That comprises more than 70 per cent of the complaints we have had about VET FEE-HELP, so we are following up on those.

Senator RHIANNON: Can I just clarify that. When you say two or more complaints, do you regard a report in the media as just one complaint?



Mr Robinson: It is when a complaint has been formally lodged with us, but we also look at the media reports as well. We try to follow up with people if we can. Some of the stories that come through the media, however, do not have actual people identified who are making the allegations, so it can be very difficult. We do look at all those issues and we might follow up with RTOs about what has been alleged and what they have got to say about it and the like. So we do follow up there.

Senator RHIANNON: Just to ask the question again, with the reports that have been in the media, can you say that you have followed up on all those reports? Do you want to take it on notice?

Mr Robinson: We can give you a more comprehensive analysis of that. Senator RHIANNON: To be fair, of which ones in the media you have followed up. Mr Robinson: But I believe we would have looked at them. There have been quite a few. Senator RHIANNON: Yes, and they are comprehensive. Mr Robinson: Some of them will be included in this audit work we are doing. Senator RHIANNON: Did you advise—I was just trying to understand the process here—the government

that the registration period for RTOs should be extended from five to seven years? Mr Robinson: We did advise some time ago that that was a possible option to be considered, and that has

been looked at. The issue here is that registrations for higher education go up to seven years and registrations for RTOs for VET have gone up to five years, and also registrations for CRICOS for overseas students go up to five years, but there is some work going on, which someone else in the department may be able to talk about later, in relation to the ESOS Act reconsideration at the moment, which I think has that issue in its sights as well.

The reason we think it is appropriate is that RTOs do have a good track record and are not figuring in intelligence about poor practice or complaints coming in or other information or analysis that we might do on the new data that is about to roll out that might indicate there are some risk factors that we need to go and look at. It is appropriate, I think, to have a reasonably long-term registration period to allow people to build their RTO practice, to invest in quality and to get a surety of a longer return on that. We do not believe, under the regulatory strategy that we are pursuing, that, if that RTO is of concern and causing concern out there, we should be waiting for five years to go and look at it. We should go and look at it much sooner. Our regulatory strategy should not be related simply to the length of the registration period.

Senator RHIANNON: Minister, have you been lobbied by any RTOs or lobbyists for the industry for this sector to make that extension?

Senator Birmingham: To make the extension for five to seven years? Senator RHIANNON: Yes. Senator Birmingham: I would not say that I have been lobbied to make that extension. It is welcomed by the

sector as well. Ultimately, they would rather have a system where compliance activities and enforcement activities were effective and directed at maintaining high-quality standards rather than being bureaucratic and simply imposing essentially a tick-a-box approach or a red-tape burden, or just not being effective at lifting the standards.

As I explained to Senator Carr before, and as Mr Robinson has certainly explained a couple of times, the evidence across a suite of landscapes when it comes to auditing activities is that risk based auditing, random auditing, is far more effective in identifying problems than well-sequenced and known auditing. When a provider knows that the auditor is coming five years in advance because that is the re-registration date, then they know to be ready for it five years in advance. These types of random audits, like Mr Robinson is doing with the 23 VET FEE-HELP providers, are far more likely to catch people off guard—that is why he is not revealing the names of them tonight—so that we get a true reflection in the audit activity of what is happening.

Yes, the sector are happy that they do not have to re-register every five years, from a red-tape perspective, but those in the sector who are serious about seeing good-quality outcomes are happy that it also frees the regulator up to be more effective in how they target their auditing activities.

Senator RHIANNON: But isn't it the case that you could also have your random audits over five years? There was nothing stopping you.

Senator Birmingham: Certainly, but that then becomes a question of resources. If Mr Robinson and ASQA are having to audit all RTOs just for the re-registration purpose every five years, that means they are spending more time on re-registration audits and have less time available to spend on risk based auditing. By extending it out an extra two years, they have more resources and more time to spend on the risk based auditing activities.



Senator RHIANNON: Minister, you said then, at the start of the response, 'I wouldn't say that I was lobbied.' Could you clarify that? Were you lobbied, or were you not lobbied?

Senator Birmingham: I do not recall a single provider, lobbyist or otherwise, speaking with me specifically about wanting to change the registration period from five years to seven years. I have certainly had a lot of them say: 'A lot of what we do is jump through compliance hoops or tick-a-box compliance activities and red tape. If you guys are going to invest in auditing activities, why don't you make them more effective?'

Senator RHIANNON: Mr Robinson and Senator Birmingham, could you both take on notice if you have been lobbied by the sector, by lobbyists for the sector or by RTOs?

Mr Robinson: I do not need to take that on notice. I have not been lobbied by any professional lobbyists. Senator RHIANNON: Okay, so Senator Birmingham? Senator Birmingham: I will check. Obviously, as a new minister, lots of people have written me letters.

Whether it has been included in one of those letters as a suggestion we will check. I certainly do not recall any conversations to that effect.

Mr Robinson: In my case the issue has come up when we have been having discussions with TEQSA about more efficient and streamlined registration processes between both of us and the problem that them having seven years while we have five years registration has caused. As you are aware, probably the majority of the providers that TEQSA actually regulates are providers who are both VET and higher ed providers, so there are some benefits in being able to streamline some of these regulatory activities in that dual sector part of the operation, but more generally for us it is about freeing up our resources to focus on the worst offenders in the system. The good RTOs in the system are deeply keen on us doing this as much as anyone else because the poor RTOs undercut quality by offering programs more cheaply to attract business when they are not really offering a quality program that they have invested resources into. So the responsible providers out there who are interested in good quality are very keen on us doing more to get rid of the poor providers out of the system as quickly as possible.

Senator RHIANNON: So you have given a lot of emphasis to resources, and this is where it seems to me the logic breaks down. If you are being provided with extra resourcing, why do you in effect need to devote resources away from re-registration? It appears that is the motivation. You are saying it is a matter of resources, but you have extra resources.

Mr Robinson: We want to give the highest priority to dealing with the poor quality providers. We have been given some extra resources that are assisting in that, but the biggest part of that process is to be able to reprioritise our existing audit resources away from the automatic re-registration process—the minister described where they know that their registration is going to finish on a certain date and sometime around that period they could be subject to an audit. When we have people who are causing real concern out there, we are able to focus our resources on looking at those people far more quickly than we otherwise would. That is what is important. I am not saying that we do not have enough resources to do our work—I think we do—but it is important that we deploy those to the biggest problem areas and the highest priority issues for the quality of the whole sector.

Senator Birmingham: I think the figures that Mr Robinson gave Senator Carr earlier about the proportion of audits that are driven by re-registration or registration based activities versus those driven by complaints or risk based activities are concerning. They are already taking action to move that in the right direction, but changes to registration time lines will allow them to take more action to do that risk based auditing to a greater extent and ultimately the advice I have is that re-registration auditing is the least likely to result in some type of sanction activity occurring. If we are all serious—and I think this is agreed across parties; we might have different philosophical approaches to some of the funding equation and so on—about wanting to see quality outcomes in this sector and wanting to see a heavy hand applied to those doing the wrong thing, then we should be wanting to see auditing activity directed where it is most likely to result in the pickup of noncompliance and most likely to result in sanction activity, and that is not re-registration.

Senator RUSTON: You may not have the information on you but, in follow-up to Senator Rhiannon's questions, do you have a breakdown of the data on noncompliance between the public providers, private not-for-profits and private profits?

Mr Robinson: I would have to take that on notice. We could not get information about that. So far, I could say we have not taken action to close a public provider. They tend to be larger and have many different areas on scope, but the big private providers and big public providers tend to have quality people working in the organisation, looking at their quality systems, more than some of the small providers.

What we have found in a number of cases, with those big providers, is that one part of their operation may be found very wanting. The result is that they get some of their scope amended so they are not allowed to continue



offering certain courses. That has happened with public dividers as it has happened with private providers. We will get you a breakdown of the public-private split or the provider type and the regulatory action we have taken, to date.

The other thing I would say is that we also have not had a large chunk of the TAFE system come up for re-registration yet, although quite a bit of it is coming up in 2015. When we received them 3½ years ago from the state regulators, most of them had a fair bit of registration period to go when they were handed over to us. So there were not many coming up for re-registration shortly after they were handed over to us. We will be doing more regulatory work with the public-sector providers in the coming two years than we have done in the past two.

CHAIR: As there are no other senators wanting to ask questions of ASQA, thank you very much, gentleman, for your time this evening. We are rearranging the program, due to agreement, and will go to outcome 3 when we resume. Senator Carr will be picking up.

Proceedings suspended from 20:52 to 21:08 Department of Education

CHAIR: We are at outcome 3. Senator Birmingham: Chair, just before we commence— CHAIR: Yes. Senator Birmingham: If it is the expectation that outcome 3 is going to take a long a time, I seek some clarity

on the record from the committee so that officers who will not be required for rest of the night might be able to go and get some sleep.

CHAIR: The committee has had some deliberations, and outcome 1 and outcome 2 will now be part of a spillover day to take place on Friday afternoon. So outcome 1 and outcome 2 officers can go home. Outcome 3 officers, please stay. We are sure we have enough questions to keep you going until 11 pm. We will reconvene for an inquiry on higher education.

Senator Birmingham: Is that all areas of outcome 3? Senator RHIANNON: So you are saying outcome 1 and outcome 2 are now on Friday, not on Thursday? CHAIR: My understanding is they are on Thursday, but the secretariat— Senator KIM CARR: Is there a spillover day on Friday? CHAIR: No, Thursday of the sitting week was my understanding week. Senator RHIANNON: Yes, that is what I understood. CHAIR: Yes. Anyway, they are not required tonight, and we will make sure that everyone is well aware— Senator Birmingham: So it is next Thursday afternoon? CHAIR: After 4. Senator Birmingham: After 4 pm on Thursday of next week. CHAIR: Yes. Senator Birmingham: Okay. Ms Paul: Thank you for the clarification. CHAIR: That is bearing in mind that ministers had to be available on appropriate days too. Alright, so

Thursday after 4 pm. We will let you know the exact time, Ms Paul, and they will be required for up to three hours.

Ms Paul: I am sorry? CHAIR: Officers will be required for up to three hours, after 4 on Thursday next week. Senator WRIGHT: I understand that Senator Carr is going to indulge me with five minutes just so that I can

knock out some rather odd questions that I thought would be in environment but are in the research aspect of outcome 3.

CHAIR: You are so indulged. Senator WRIGHT: These are questions about the 'integrated marine observing system'. Ms Paul: I am sorry? Senator WRIGHT: These are questions about the Integrated Marine Observing System. Ms Paul: Yes, that is indeed in the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy.



Senator WRIGHT: Yes, thank you. I will quickly get these out of the way. Senator Birmingham: This was a wonderful discovery for both of us the other day, Senator Wright. Senator WRIGHT: It was, indeed. IMOS—it is my understanding that one of the Integrated Marine

Observing System underwater acoustic observatories is currently deployed off Kangaroo Island in South Australia. Am I right in thinking that is the case?

Mr Griew: That is the case. Senator WRIGHT: I also understand that the data from this acoustic observatory is, or will be, publically

available. Is that right too? Mr Griew: Let me just find the brief, unless Ms Hart can add. Ms Hart: We will probably have to take that on notice. Mr Griew: I am just finding the brief that I have. Sorry, we have been slightly taken by surprise— Senator WRIGHT: I am sure you have; I am sorry. Mr Griew: because we were not expecting outcome 3 at this moment in the evening. Senator WRIGHT: No, and you were at the very last part of it. Mr Griew: Officers with all the expertise are on their way here now; one of them is just arriving. Senator WRIGHT: Okay, thank you for that. Mr Griew: Sorry, what was your question? Senator WRIGHT: My question was: I understand the data from this acoustic observatory off Kangaroo

Island should be publically available, is that right? Mr Griew: That is not specifically covered in the brief I have here, so we might have to take that on notice.

When you say publically available— Senator WRIGHT: The data will be available to the public. Mr Griew: It is certainly available to all the collaborators in the capability. Senator KIM CARR: This is IMOS, is it? Senator WRIGHT: Yes. Mr English: Yes, data from the facilities is generally made publically available, although for particular

collection points and particular results we would have to check to get a bit more precise advice for you. But, generally, the principle around the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Scheme is that the results of their work would be publically available, and, generally, that would include data. But, for a site within a network that spans the coast of the country, I would have to check; I am sorry.

Senator WRIGHT: Do you mean you would have to check for a particular site? Mr English: Yes, that is right. Senator WRIGHT: Thank you for that— Mr English: For the facts of Kangaroo Island, I would have to check. Senator WRIGHT: because that was my question: when will it become available? I am asking because the

data collected will likely contain whale calls, which will help determine whale presence in that particular area off Kangaroo Island. It is information which is of critical importance because of the amount of oil and gas exploration that has been planned in the Great Australian Bite in coming months and years by a number of operators, including Bite Petroleum, Schlumberger, Ion, Chevron and BP. How long does it usually take between collecting the data and it becoming publically available, in the general scope of things?

Mr English: I would take that on notice, Senator, if I could, because that will require me to get very particular advice from that organisation about their practices with respect to the management of the data from collection to publication.

Senator WRIGHT: There is a significant amount of interest in the data amongst scientists and researchers. They are keen to get a sense of how they can get the data and how that data can be made available to them. What is the best way for them to keep abreast of where the data is up to?

Mr English: Certainly I would encourage most researchers to contact the project managers directly. The IMOS is a well-managed project. They will have well-established protocols for the sharing of data, and that is part of the arrangement for having them in the NCRIS system. The researchers would go to those projects directly.



Mr Griew: The South Australian node of IMOS is operated by the South Australian Research and Development Institute, in collaboration with Flinders University. That would be the place. You are aware, of course, Senator, that this is not a government instrumentality? This is a research—

Senator WRIGHT: Collaborative, yes. Mr Griew: collaboration of a number of independent organisations. Senator WRIGHT: Yes. Mr Griew: But it sounds like the South Australian Research and Development Institute would be a good place

to start. Senator WRIGHT: To start, yes. Mr Griew: Or the University of Tasmania—that is the lead agent in the IMOS collaboration. Senator WRIGHT: All right. Senator Birmingham: Senator Wright, as officials have taken some of that on notice, obviously, we will try

to get some response about whether that data subset of the bigger project is made public. Senator WRIGHT: Yes. Senator Birmingham: Obviously, as has been made clear, the findings of the project are made public but

there is some uncertainty about to what extent— Senator WRIGHT: Specific data. Senator Birmingham: individual data subsets are made public. So we will try to get some clarity on that. But

in the meantime SARDI is a good place for you to go and talk to, and I am sure you have contacts there. Senator KIM CARR: Madam Secretary, I have noticed that page 42 of the portfolio additional estimates

statements details a number of key performance indicators. It strikes me that there have been significant revisions in the number of domestic undergraduate low-SES students—a reduction of 2,600 in the number of domestic undergraduates from lower SES. There is some change there. That is not a reduction, but how do you account for that? Statistical area level 1 measurement, what is the difference for the variation there?

Ms Paul: I might get our measurement experts up. People are still driving in, I think, so we will see if we have the right people.

Senator KIM CARR: Ah, well I will come back to that. Ms Paul: No, it is okay, we are almost there. Senator Birmingham: You will just have to forgive us if you can, Senator Carr. Obviously, we started to

assume that outcome 3 was either going to get on very late tonight or not at all. Senator KIM CARR: Did you? Senator Birmingham: And we were unaware that the committee was rescheduling. Ms Paul: I think we are there though, we are just looking through the thing. Dr Taylor: Which estimate was it again, sorry, Senator? Senator KIM CARR: On the second line in the table on page 42: the difference between domestic

undergraduate low-SES students has fallen by 2.6 on your revised estimates by 2,600 and: Statistical Area Level 1 (SA1) measure of the number of domestic undergraduates in low SES— is plus 5,700. How do you account for the difference?

Dr Taylor: They are measured slightly differently, I am just checking that we are looking at the same one. The statistical area 1, the one that lists 119,700—is that the one?

Ms Paul: Yes, that is the one. Senator Carr, you are looking at two things: are you looking at the line that has 119,700 in the last column, and the line above it?

Senator KIM CARR: Yes. Ms Paul: Yes. Dr Taylor: Both these estimates are revised based on the latest actual data, and they are both using slightly

different measures. The number of domestic undergraduate low-SES enrolments is based using the postcode measure, which was the measure for the baseline for the 20 per cent target, whereas the statistical area 1 is a slightly different measure. It is still an area based measure, but that is used largely for HEP funding. So they do give you slightly different results. The SA1 is not attached to the 20 per cent target, whereas with the number of



domestic undergraduate places we use the 20 per cent target as the end point and work backwards. They are done in slightly different methodologies, and in this case they have given us a slightly awkward result in that they have gone in different ways.

Senator KIM CARR: I will come to a number of these. Can you provide me with the number of Commonwealth supported domestic undergraduate places over the forward estimates, given this revision.

Mr Griew: Projected to be occupied by low-SES students, or in total? Senator KIM CARR: No, the total domestic undergraduate. That was just a statistic that jumped out at me.

There is considerable variation, and I know how fond you are of consistency, Mr Taylor. Can you tell me what the number of Commonwealth supported domestic undergraduate places now is, given the revisions, over the forward estimates.

Mr Taylor: Before my colleagues get to that, these projections use places to help project it forward, but they are mainly based on what happened in the immediate year and the statistical area. If it does not match up with projected growth, it may be because the methodology used to get these estimates does not rely on that growth.

Senator KIM CARR: What does it rely on? Mr Taylor: It goes by past pattern. The difference here is that the statistical area 1 just goes by past pattern,

and we assume that trend continues; whereas the undergraduate low-SES enrolment is tracked forward to the 20 per cent target and then works back. They use different methodologies that, in this case, have given us a bit of a different result.

Senator KIM CARR: Let's go to page 40—the budget estimate was $725,000 and now the revised budget estimate is $721,000. How do you account for that?

Mr Taylor: That one was derived by extrapolating the university estimates. University estimates had levelled off, so we levelled off the projection.

Senator KIM CARR: Are you now able to give me a revised estimate across the forward estimates based on these figures? I am looking particularly for the number of Commonwealth supported domestic undergraduate places. You clearly have one for this year.

Mr Taylor: My colleagues may have that figure. We certainly produced these for the budget documents. Mr Griew: I think we should take that on notice. Because this is an estimates document, it is in financial

years, so there is an added complexity, because the universities estimate to us in calendar years. Could I suggest we take on notice for you our current projections based on university advice of the years that they have given us those projections for?

Senator KIM CARR: I am looking for—given you are going to answer the same question and give me the same answer, I am sure—the number of Commonwealth supported domestic undergraduate places; the number of Commonwealth supported domestic postgraduate places; the number of domestic enrolments full-time equivalent; the number of domestic postgraduate enrolments full-time equivalent; the number of undergraduate completions; the number of postgraduate coursework completions; the number of higher education graduates in full-time employment within four months of the completion of a degree as a proportion of those available for work; the graduate starting salaries as a proportion of male average weekly earning; the number of domestic undergraduate low-SES enrolments; the statistical area 1 measure of the number of domestic undergraduate students in low-SES across the forwards; and the proportion of higher education undergraduate students from low-SES background. Can you provide that?

Ms Paul: If we can and, of course, Dr Taylor said it relies on university estimates. But you want that over the forwards—

Senator KIM CARR: That is right—based on these new estimates. Ms Paul: Yes, that is fine. Senator KIM CARR: There is a significant change here. Senator Birmingham: There is, Senator Carr, but I note that they are all still going up— Senator KIM CARR: No, that is not right. Senator Birmingham: compared with 2013-14. Senator KIM CARR: How is that? Look at the number of domestic enrolments, full-time equivalent: 725

down to 721. Senator Birmingham: Well, 693,310 up to 721,200, going year on year.



Senator KIM CARR: Yes, but I am interested— Senator Birmingham: So there is still a significant increase. It is a slightly smaller increase than the original

budget had— Senator KIM CARR: No, it isn't— Senator Birmingham: and hopefully we will be able to give you some more information as to why that

estimate has varied. But I would not want you to suggest that there was a decrease happening. It is still a significant increase in the number of domestic enrolments, full-time equivalent.

Mr Griew: The same— Senator KIM CARR: Ten months ago you gave this parliament some statistics—well, not you, but the

department provided this parliament with statistics—and you are revising them. Senator BIRMINGHAM: I suspect that the other factor—and I will be corrected by officials if need be—is

that 10 months ago we would not have had an actual for 2013-14 because, of course, 2013-14 had not completed at that time. So, given that these projections are based on projections of the previous year's actuals, it would not be unusual for there to be an adjustment that occurs to projections once the previous year's actuals are finalised. That is what would happen in pretty much any budget circumstance.

Mr Griew: And, in fact, that number came down. Ms Paul: Yes. If you are doing apples with apples, you either go budget to budget, which of course is actually

not as useful, or actuals to actuals. As the minister just said, that would be comparing 2013-14 with 2014-15—693,310 with 721,200. Because we rely on university estimates, I imagine it is not too surprising that it looks like that over time. It is also the case that in 2013-14 whatever they had advised turned out to be slightly less—only slightly—3,000 and, as it was, 4,000 in 2014-15.

Mr Griew: Can I just come back to your question, Senator? Some of those items that you asked for we would have on the basis of projections from universities. Some of them we would not. We would not have projections of employment rates for undergraduates. That is a factor of the macroeconomy as much as anything we get estimates from universities on. We will do what we can.

Senator KIM CARR: Obviously, whatever you have. You provide a set of statistical series on selected higher education that is often a little late. But now that you have provided this revised budget number, you must have some additional calculations about what the level of demand in the system will be?

Ms Paul: We would have what the universities have supplied to us. Whatever allows for projections we will give you against what you have asked for. If we cannot, we will say why.

Senator KIM CARR: Okay. When I look at the RIS that was published last year for the higher education bill, on page 111, under '7.2 no change option', the department has estimated that: … the uncapping of student places in 2009 and subsequent enrolment growth are estimated to cost an additional $7.6 billion in CGS outlays by government over five years from 2013-14.

Mr Griew: That remains our estimate. I do not have the RIS with me but that figure— Senator KIM CARR: You are familiar with that estimate? Mr Griew: I am familiar with that estimate, yes. Senator KIM CARR: And you are saying that that remains your view? Mr Griew: I will take on notice whether there is any refinement to that, because, as you have just noted in the

previous exchange, we have twice-yearly updates from the universities on their projections of likely enrolments, but that figure is familiar to me as the figure that we have previously used.

Senator KIM CARR: It has been used several times, I know. Are you able to provide me with a funding profile of that estimate? How do you reach that conclusion year by year?

Mr Griew: Certainly not this minute, but I can take that on notice. Senator KIM CARR: No, no. Obviously it is not something you carry in your head but— Mr Griew: There are some people here who might, actually! Senator Birmingham: There is the odd walking abacus amongst them! Senator KIM CARR: Would you take that on notice, please. In terms of the department's estimate, what now

is the growth rate in the system? What do you anticipate the growth rate to be? Mr Griew: Between '14 and '15?



Senator KIM CARR: Over the forward estimates, year by year, what do you think it will be? Mr Griew: We will have to take that on notice as well. Senator KIM CARR: I will have to go to specifics then. Mr Griew: The general trend is clear. Senator KIM CARR: Has it declined? Mr Griew: No. The general trend is that, after a number of years, through the overenrolment period and then

the implementation of the demand driven system, we had very, very high growth—five per cent-odd or thereabouts each year. That demand has tapered off since then but it is still growing. But we can take on notice to get you that.

Senator KIM CARR: Thank you. The issue of the underlying pattern of expenditure is something that has obviously been given some considerable attention. Are you familiar with the report on 17 February in The Age covering a presentation by Dr Ben Phillips at a forum at the University of Canberra on 13 February? This is about some NATSEM modelling regarding the changes in the funding environment. Are you familiar with that?

Mr Griew: Yes. Senator KIM CARR: The proposition that Dr Phillips has argued is that the demographic trends in higher

education mean that higher education costs are not in fact going to blow out, because, as a result of the ageing of the population, the proportion of 18- to 24-year-olds in the population will grow by a much smaller percentage than has been argued up until this point, compared with overall population growth, so the higher education costs are set to decline from 0.6 per cent of GDP to 0.5 per cent of GDP by 2050. Are you familiar with that presentation?

Mr Griew: I have a different report of that presentation in front of me, off news.com, and it does not go to that point. It goes to a different part of his argument, so I would hate to do him the injustice of commenting on a part of his argument that has not been reported in the media that I have read.

Senator KIM CARR: He argues that there is a change in demographics which means there will be fewer young people as a percentage of the population and, as a consequence, we need to reconsider the demand levels in the system. What do you say to that?

Mr Griew: The argument that young people are a lower proportion of the population seems reasonably uncontroversial, over time. What was the conclusion that you reported that he drew from that?

Senator KIM CARR: The conclusion was that the percentage of education's call on GDP will actually fall from 0.6 per cent to 0.5 per cent.

Ms Paul: I am not aware of the number, the percentage, but it may be the case that young people are becoming a smaller percentage of the population because, as we know, the population is ageing. But in the schooling sector, for example, we know that enrolments are continuing to increase because there has been, in effect, a baby boom—if you want to call it that—an increase in fertility, in recent years. In absolute numbers, the number of young people is increasing. As I have not seen that research, I do not want to comment on that—it would not be fair to the author—but it is certainly the case that enrolments in the schooling sector are growing. Obviously, particularly because it is now a demand-driven system in higher education, I would imagine that will translate into increasing enrolments. I have no idea whether he took that into account.

Mr Griew: The other thing is there is a proportionality thing here. We would want to look pretty closely at the numbers there because there is a baby boom now washing through the school system towards the higher education system. Also, while there is an ageing of the population, the notion that it will make that drastic a change to outlays does not initially appear plausible to me. We would want to have a look at the numbers.

Ms Paul: We would need to have a look at the report. Senator KIM CARR: I might suggest that it might be appropriate to have a conversation with NATSEM

about this. Ms Paul: Sure. We would be happy to. Mr Griew: I am sure that the intergenerational report coming up may touch on some of these issues. I am

equally sure it will highlight that one of the challenges we face is that the proportion of working-age taxpayers will be in decline in future years, which puts pressures on all aspects of government services as well.

Senator KIM CARR: When do you expect this growth in your population to hit the universities? It is 10 years away, isn't it?



Ms Paul: Not necessarily. There has actually been a consistent growth in enrolment in schools. I actually like your suggestion of talking to NATSEM. I am quite happy to sit down with them. We know that the enrolments in schools are driving quite a significant increase in outlays in schooling. They are being driven by enrolments.

Mr Griew: I have two comments to make in response to your question. The increase in birth rate I think would suggest that there is an increase which is less than 10 years away in the school-leaver population. And of course more than half of the enrolments now are coming from mature age students as well. It is not quite as simple as being purely a youth-phenomenon demand for university places.

Senator KIM CARR: What Dr Phillips does argue though is that the particular concern relates to the blow-out in student debt. I notice that you highlight at page 43 that there appears to be quite a significant change in the provision of HELP loans for higher education students. Is that right?

Mr Griew: That is correct. We are anticipating an increase in HELP loans both as a result of the number of students coming through the system as result of the demand-driven system and growth. The estimates here, as we have discussed before, are based on agreed work between us and the Department of Finance on the level of loans.

Senator KIM CARR: If you have a look at the bottom line of the table, that is a significant variation in the number of places for which VET FEE-HELP loans are paid, isn't it? There is a 30 per cent increase in the space of 10 months.

Ms Paul: Absolutely. We have talked about that before. This is a reflection of the extension to the public system by the former government in 2012. That is absolutely right. The growth has been extremely significant, but it was off, in effect, a zero base.

Senator KIM CARR: But that is not the issue. This is about what you said to the parliament 10 months ago. It is not a zero base there. In the budget for 2014-15, it was 172. It has gone out to 225.

Ms Paul: Sorry, I was talking about the growth from 2012. Senator KIM CARR: If I look on page 42, total program expenses have moved by, over the forward

estimates, $5.9 billion. Is that correct? I have here revised budget estimates and forward one, two and three years—it is $5.9 billion, is it not?

Mr Griew: What is expensed here are the expenses of running the loan system, so there isn't a movement here of that order. It is a significant movement but this is the amount of the expense each year.

Senator KIM CARR: If you think my figures are wrong, what do you say? Mr Griew: It is just that you have added these up as if that is the level of movement Senator KIM CARR: What do you say the number is then, if you don’t like my maths? Mr Hart: In term of the expenses on a financial year basis there are a number of factors that determine what

the HELP expenses will be. It includes the deferral costs; the difference between the bond rate the government borrows at and the indexation at CPI; there is also in the case of HECS up-front discount as well as the bonus payment along the way. You will see that there is an increase across the forward estimates and that is as a result of adjustment that occurred at MYEFO from going back from the bond rate to the CPI measure, which the government included in the bill that is before the parliament.

Senator KIM CARR: What is the total amount of the blow-out? Mr Griew: Blow-out is not what Mr Hart just explained. What he just explained is an estimates revision as a

result of a policy change. Senator BIRMINGHAM: Unless you are suggesting, Senator Carr, that you would rather the interest rate on

HELP debts would apply to the bond rate. Senator KIM CARR: Again I would urge you not to be a smart alec here because you will find that it is not

helpful at all. I have asked a direct question and I would expect a direct answer. Senator BIRMINGHAM: You got one, Senator Carr. Senator KIM CARR: No I did not. Senator BIRMINGHAM: I am sure he can repeat the facts if you did not understand them the first time. Senator KIM CARR: Can you explain to me, then, what is the cause for the $1.5 to $ 2.3 billion variation?

You will tell me that it is a policy change—is that what you are saying? Mr Hart: The costs there are just an estimate in relation to administering the HELP scheme and that is the

cost to the Commonwealth in relation to advancing loans to recipients. We have different information that you



might be interested in in terms of the total value of the HELP asset, of all the loans combined. Is that the information you are seeking.

Senator KIM CARR: Yes I am. Mr Hart: As at 30 June 2014 the fair value, which is the amount that the Commonwealth expects to be repaid

in HELP loans, is $25.1 billion. It is treated as an asset to the Commonwealth. Senator KIM CARR: Yes, I appreciate that. Mr Griew: The number of students receiving loans has, as your last set of questions indicated, increased

significantly. Senator KIM CARR: And that accounts for the program expenses of $1.5 million to $2.3 billion in the

revised budget estimates and then from there to $2.8 to $3.5 to $4.3 billion. How do you account for that variation?

Senator BIRMINGHAM: The cost of reversing the bond rate indexation measure that was proposed in the initial higher education reforms and removed from the legislation that is now before the parliament in favour of a return to CPI, with I note the generous provisions Senator Madigan negotiated for families, is estimated to be $3.2 billion over the forward estimates. I will let officials correct me if I am reading the briefing wrongly. That is the cost of making the change back to CPI.

Mr Griew: The measures on page 16—the higher education reform amendments—of which there are a number, are totalled in there. A significant proportion of that is on page 16. There is a line that has $425 million, $591 million, $754 million and $913 million.

Senator KIM CARR: I see that. Mr Griew: Those are costs that are significantly driven by the change from bond interest rate to CPI interest

rate, which have been included in this document and are accounted for in the revised budget. So the figures on page 42 include both the growth in the program—

Senator KIM CARR: In the number of students plus the variation? Mr Hart: For the students taking out the loan, plus the reversal. Mr Griew: Plus the cost of the discount. Senator KIM CARR: I am still having trouble following this, because in the previous estimates wasn't it the

case that they vary quite substantially beyond that? What was the cost of the discount? Mr Hart: The cost of actually going from— Senator KIM CARR: Bond rate back to CPI? What is the cost of that. Mr Griew: That is page 16. Ms Paul: Mr Griew is pointing out page 16. Mr Griew: Which does include some other elements. Let me be clear. We can take it on notice. But that

includes the number of changes— Ms Paul: Of which the most significant by far was— Senator KIM CARR: So why don't you tell me what the other changes are, the most significant being the

backing-off from the bond rate? What other factors were there? Ms Paul: The next one down is the structural adjustment fund that was announced as part of the new bill. Mr Griew: But there is also the amendment from Senator Madigan. So there is a number of different changes. Ms Paul: Remember, too, that the interest rate on HECS-HELP is now not only reversed back to CPI in this

bill, but also has a five-year point where even CPI is not charged for parents of— Senator Birmingham: It is frozen— Senator KIM CARR: How much is that worth? Where do I find that? Ms Paul: The cost of that would be included in the overall costs. Senator KIM CARR: How much is that specific item. Senator Birmingham: It is $172.2 million, as against for the measure reversing the bond rate to CPI, which is

$3.168 billion. Senator KIM CARR: What then is your projection on the non-repayment rate? Mr Griew: We have answered that before.



Mr Hart: For the debt not expected to be repaid? Our latest information is that the VET not expected to be repaid on new loans is 17 per cent.

Senator KIM CARR: So it remains at 17 per cent? Mr Hart: Yes. We engaged the Australian Government Actuary to assist us in providing an update to those

measures annually. So we would expect to do the next update at the end of this financial year. Senator KIM CARR: If I could have ED0725_15. Is that possible. I understand that you provided me with an

answer that actually moved that to 22 per cent. Mr Griew: Over the forward estimates we expect it to go from 17 to about 22. Mr Hart: I think 23 was the number. Senator KIM CARR: And are you expecting it to stabilise at 25 per cent? Mr Griew: I think that is the evidence we have provided before. I would have to confirm that. Mr Hart: That is our best estimate at this point in time, but we revise those annually based on expert advice. Senator KIM CARR: What is the basis for your estimates in that regard. Mr Griew: The Australian Government Actuary advises us. Senator KIM CARR: So it is entirely on that basis. You indicate in ED0718_15 that future HELP scheme

expenditure for 2014-15 was not intended to be a prediction of course fees. Did you model that? Mr Griew: For 2014-15? Senator KIM CARR: Expenditure for 2014-15. Mr Griew: If I understand the question, in the government's legislation in the academic year 2015 fees remain

regulated in the same way in which they are now. Senator KIM CARR: So what is the basis of your calculation in the out years? Mr Griew: As we have answered previously, the work that we have done with the Department of Finance to

project fee levels, which then worked through all of the estimating algorithms that produced the estimates. Senator KIM CARR: Sorry? Mr Griew: For budget purposes we and the Department of Finance agreed a set of estimates of fee levels at an

aggregate level, and then, with all the data we have, calculated those through to levels of loan repayment rates and so on. That work is also then worked through with the Actuary. So it is a two-stage process of us working out the numbers with Finance and then checking the implications for HELP estimates accounting with the Australian Government Actuary. It involves estimating repayment rates and so on.

Senator KIM CARR: Turning to ED0709_15, which relates to two pieces of correspondence that have been sent to universities in relation to the application of an efficiency dividend in 2014, advance payments under the Commonwealth Grants Scheme. I have the two letters here. One is dated 7 May, and was signed by a Mr Warburton. The other is dated 28 October 2014, and was signed by Ms Birmingham. In the letters it is indicated that the payments for designated and non-designated courses of study had amounts withheld for an efficiency dividend on the basis that the government was intending to progress legislation. If that legislation is defeated in the Senate—and there is every expectation that that will be the case—when do you expect to have to repay universities?

Ms Paul: I think we talked about this last time, too. Senator KIM CARR: Yes, we have. We are now closer to the said date. Mr Hart: That is correct. The payments have been withheld. The reason that was done was to not actually

cause, should the bill be passed, an impost on institutions to repay those amounts that they had already received. So they have been withheld and the money is available should it need to be repaid. We will have further estimates from institutions around May in terms of their student load. But this is all subject to the passage of legislation, which is a matter for the government.

Senator KIM CARR: It is a matter for the parliament, actually. Governments do not pass legislation. Parliament is engaged in that process.

Senator BIRMINGHAM: Senator Carr, we need to be clear here—and, again, officials can tell me whether I am right in this regard—the efficiency dividend does not necessarily relate to the higher education reform package of legislation—

Senator KIM CARR: It is in the bill.



Senator BIRMINGHAM: Is it? Is it in that bill or is it in separate legislation? Because, of course, aspects of the efficiency dividends we are talking about are efficiency dividends that your government had sought to apply.

Senator KIM CARR: They have already been rejected, Minister, on several occasions by the parliament. The government has sought to incorporate them in the bill. The point I was making—

Ms Paul: The minister is correct. It was in different legislation. Senator BIRMINGHAM: So they have been rejected in different legislation already. They were, of course,

your government's efficiency dividends, Senator Carr. Senator KIM CARR: I have made it clear to you that when you ratted on the Gonski deal we walked away

from it, and that is essentially what the situation is. Universities are entitled to this money, and I understand it has to be paid—

Senator BIRMINGHAM: You did not think they were entitled to it before, Senator Carr. Senator KIM CARR: You would be surprised what I thought. Senator BIRMINGHAM: Your government did not think they were entitled to it, Senator Carr. You went to

the last election saying they were not entitled to it. Senator KIM CARR: On the 8 May 2014 pay date, is that the date on which moneys should flow? Mr Griew: I think the answers that Mr Hart has given is that the May update leads us to make the calculation

that if a payment is necessary it would happen by the end of the financial year. Senator KIM CARR: Sorry. Your letters actually state, 'Payments will commence from 8 May.' That is not

correct, is it? Ms Paul: Mr Griew has just said by the end of the financial year. Senator KIM CARR: Yes, but 8 May is the date in the letters. Ms Paul: It is not necessarily a contradiction. Mr Hart: Senator, are you referring to 2014? Senator KIM CARR: Yes, 2014 is the first letter. Has that money been paid? Mr Hart: No moneys have been repaid to institutions at this point in time. So, come May, we will have a

better indication from institutions about their actual student load for 2014, which would allow an appropriate reconciliation to repay those amounts should that be the approach.

Senator KIM CARR: Okay. My question goes to the date at which that is due. Mr Hart: The date at which the money is due to be— Senator KIM CARR: Paid. Mr Hart: It is subject to a decision by the government—my apologies, the parliament. We would not want to

repay funds ahead of a decision being made that withdrew that money further. Senator KIM CARR: I want to be clear about this: when the parliament rejects this bill a second time, are

you required by law to pay that money to the universities? Mr Hart: We are not required by law. Senator KIM CARR: Why is that? Mr Hart: That is the nature of how the act works, but— Senator BIRMINGHAM: Sorry. I want to get some clarity here about which efficiency dividends we are

talking about and which bills. When talking about withheld payments, we are presumably talking about payments in the current financial year, which would have been subject to the 2014 efficiency dividend.

Mr Hart: It is a calendar basis, Senator. So it is two per cent for 2014. Senator BIRMINGHAM: The efficiency dividend 2014 and the 2015 efficiency dividend— Mr Hart: Is 1.25 per cent. Senator BIRMINGHAM: Are those efficiency dividends in the higher education reform bill? Mr Hart: They are. Senator BIRMINGHAM: Are they? Mr Griew: From 2016. It is a separate piece of legislation that would enact them for the period up to then.



Senator BIRMINGHAM: Thank you, Mr Griew. There is a separate piece of legislation that enacts those efficiency dividends for 2014 and 2015, Senator Carr.

Senator KIM CARR: It is on the Notice Paper. Have those measures been rejected by the Senate before? Senator BIRMINGHAM: I do not believe so. I think, like many things— Ms Paul: They are still on the Notice Paper. Senator KIM CARR: No. Have those measures been rejected by the Senate before? Senator BIRMINGHAM: Has the HESA bill dealing with the 2014 and 2015 efficiency dividends— Senator KIM CARR: No, there have been separate attempts to impose these reductions and they have been

rejected by the Senate on previous occasions. Senator BIRMINGHAM: Senator Carr, you are talking about the 2014 and 2015 efficiency dividends. They

are in the HESA bill, not the higher education reform bill. Senator KIM CARR: We can go round and round in circles— CHAIR: This needs to be clear, Senator Carr. Senator BIRMINGHAM: Senator Carr, you have got up on your high horse before telling me how I was

wrong; it turns out I wasn't. Senator Carr, I want to make sure we are perfectly clear on this. Ms Paul: The efficiency dividend that we are talking about here is the one that was proposed by the former

government. There were some aspects of it which were subject to a disallowable instrument, and that is what was rejected.

Senator KIM CARR: Yes. Ms Paul: It is exactly as the minister described: the amendments for the efficiency dividend for 2014 and

2015 were in the HESA bill which has not been rejected or passed. From 2016, it is subject to the reform bill. Senator KIM CARR: Thank you. CHAIR: Thank you for that clarification. Senator KIM CARR: My point is: at what stage are you required to repay the moneys withheld? Ms Paul: I think Mr Hart's evidence has been pretty clear that we have advised universities quite clearly that

we will make this consideration. This is only in the circumstance for the future efficiency dividend from 2016 if the reform bill does not pass. We are not here making any judgement about whether that will pass or fail. We have said clearly that, if it were the case that we were in a position to need to make repayments, we would do it before the end of the financial year.

Senator KIM CARR: Previous moneys that have been withheld, when are they due for repayment? Mr Griew: If the bill with the efficiency dividend in it for 2014-15 does not pass by May, we will then be

repaying March of this financial year. Ms Paul: We are still, in this case, talking about the HESA amendments. We are not talking about the reform

bill. We need to be absolutely clear. In terms of the repayments that you have been asking about, as the minister said, we are not actually talking about the passage or failure of the reform the bill, we are talking about something completely different, which is a set of particular amendments that go to that efficiency dividend in HESA.

Senator KIM CARR: So there is a series of measures— CHAIR: Sorry, Senator Carr, I think it is important that, when we ask seeking clarification, because there has

been a bit of misunderstanding, we give Ms Paul complete time to finish her answers. Ms Paul: Obviously we have not withheld payments from 2016. We have withheld payments from current

and previous payments. Therefore the repayment, if we are in that situation that we are talking about, is subject to the consideration of the amendments to the Higher Education Support Act, not to the reform bill.

Senator Birmingham: The only moneys withheld to date are the moneys under the efficiency dividends that your government, when in office, had proposed to apply, Senator Carr, but your party, now in opposition, are refusing to support.

Senator KIM CARR: That is right, and is the case— Senator Birmingham: That is right. Thank you, Senator Carr. Senator KIM CARR: I make no bones about it. I am asking you: when are you obliged to pay that money. I

thought what Mr Hart said before was that the department was not required at law to repay that money.



Mr Hart: There is no time limit on it, Senator, but it would coincide with the period of May where we would do the reconciliation based on the actual student load and the variation there for 2014.

Senator KIM CARR: Okay. Ms Paul: What we do not know is how those amendments to THE HESA will go. Senator KIM CARR: I am saying to you that the current legislation sets down payments that are required. Is

that the case? Mr Griew: The point that Mr Hart has made, just to be clear, goes to the timing of when the payment must be

made. That was the point he was making. I think he has now answered a number of times that we will do the reconciliation in the latter part of this financial year.

Ms Paul: Obviously there is no particular time limit. We need clarity on the outcome of those amendments to HESA.

Senator Birmingham: Senator Carr, what I understand Mr Hart to have said is that, when the final reconciliation for 2014 occurs, then the payments that have been withheld because of the government's intention to implement the efficiency dividend, which your party had proposed in government, will be made because, yes, that is the current law. When the reconciliation occurs it will make sure that what should have happened in 2014 under the current law happens, notwithstanding the fact that, if your party had stood by what it took to the election in terms of a savings measure, those payments should not have been made.

Senator KIM CARR: Mr Hart, how much is involved? Mr Hart: Over what period, Senator? Senator KIM CARR: Let's start with the 2014 amount. Mr Hart: This is by financial year basis. These are initial estimates that were done in the context of the 2013-

14 budget, I believe. It was $84.9 million. Senator KIM CARR: Okay, that is for 2014. Mr Griew: That figure is a total figure, and bear in mind that some part of that will be implemented through

legislative instruments and some part through the proposed bill. It may be best if we give you that breakdown on notice.

Senator KIM CARR: Thank you. But it is of that range, around 85 million required, and for the reconciliation.

Mr Hart: Yes, around that range. Senator KIM CARR: Do you have a breakdown for individual universities? Mr Hart: I would have to take that on notice. Senator KIM CARR: Of course. Mr Griew: We have provided you with that previously. Ms Paul: Yes, I think we have done that on— Senator KIM CARR: You have provided that, have you? Ms Paul: I believe so. I am pretty sure. I thought I had seen that in a question on notice, perhaps at budget

estimates; I am not sure. We will check it out. Senator RHIANNON: This morning when we were trying to explore some of the advertising issues, I asked

some questions that I would like to return to. Principle 4 of the department's guidelines for expenditure on advertising states, 'Any campaign must be instigated on the basis of a demonstrated need.' It is a quote you would obviously know well. Other than the government's desperation to pass its legislation, what was the demonstrated need for this advertising campaign?

Ms Paul: To go into the detail of this—the people who attended the open days and so on are here now, so I am more than happy to talk about it—between July and September last year, and I think we talked about this before, we attended five tertiary skills or career exhibitions and 41 open days across 36 higher-education institutes. We estimate that we probably talked to about 8,000 prospective students and their families. As I said this morning, I think, we encountered a range of misconceptions and—I am not sure what adjective I used—quite a fundamental lack of understanding, even about the current system and of the reforms.

In particular, we found there was a common misconception that the reforms would mean that the HECS-HELP scheme would be abolished and we discovered that prospective students and their families were very worried that they would have to pay up-front fees versus the current system, where not a cent has to be paid up-front; it is only



after you reach earnings—if the legislation passes—over $50,000. That indicated there was a need for information in the market. The people who were there can talk in more detail, but I am advised that prospective students and families, once they heard they would not have to pay a cent up-front and the scheme would stay, were offered some amount of comfort.

Then formal market research was undertaken, which we talked about this morning. It basically found the same thing—for example, the fact that the federal government funds, under the current system, a large part of a student's course et cetera. ORIMA research found there was a very low level of understanding that there was a level of funding from the federal government or from contribution.

I do not know if you were here, but one of the quotes from that research was, and I presume they were being asked about their understanding of the Commonwealth's involvement—I am not sure what the question was—that somebody said, 'Is that about the Commonwealth Bank?' So there was quite a deal of fundamental misunderstanding about the current system and the impact of the reforms.

I am advised that this piece of market research found up to 81 per cent of respondents were unaware that HECS would remain in place with the system of no up-front fees and not a cent to be paid until you are earning a certain amount. The ORIMA research report found overall that it was appropriate for the Australian government to be conducting a campaign. Some of the people the researchers talked to in focus groups agreed with that. Apparently one of the prospective students said, 'It's important to get out there. People are worried about paying more. It's important to encourage people to still go.'

That was the nature of the context for the campaign. As I said this morning, the market research directly informed the creative for the campaign.

Senator RHIANNON: You are saying that is a demonstrated need. I understand the guidelines also state that campaign materials must not scorn the views, policies and actions of political parties or members of parliament.

Ms Paul: I am not sure the guidelines use the word 'scorn'. I do not know where that would be. Senator RHIANNON: I do not have the number here. Ms Paul: Naturally, I have read them carefully but it does not ring a bell. Senator RHIANNON: I will find the quote for that and will put it down for you. I will come back to that one.

Portfolio additional estimates statements set out that the costs associated with HELP debt—I am on page 40 to 43 here—are anticipated to almost treble, from about $1.5 billion in 2013-14 to $4.4 billion in 2017-18.

Ms Paul: We have just— CHAIR: That was Senator Carr's line of questioning. Senator RHIANNON: Was that with Senator Carr? Senator Birmingham: That is indeed what we were going through with Senator Carr. Senator RHIANNON: I do not want to repeat that; I can go over that one. Senator Birmingham: We established that a very large part of that is attributable to the government removing

its proposal to shift indexation to the bond rate and going back to the CPI rate. I am sure, Senator Rhiannon, you would warmly applaud that change.

Ms Paul: We might draw your attention, Senator Rhiannon— CHAIR: Hansard: note the smile of Senator Rhiannon! Ms Paul: Apropos the reference you are making now to page 42, I draw your attention to page 16. Under

'Higher Education Reforms—amendments' there are numbers that go $425,766,000 and $591,040,000 et cetera. We did give evidence on this to Senator Carr a while ago.

Senator RHIANNON: Okay, I'll go back and look at that. Ms Paul: I can talk about it briefly, but you will find it on the record already. It encompasses a range of the

features of the current bill, the new bill, and we have taken on notice to break that down. By far the largest portion of that is because of the return to the CPI rate of interest on HECS-HELP loans in the current bill and the new feature of a pause on the interest rate for the parents of a newborn.

Senator RHIANNON: When does the department expect the cost of HELP to exceed the cost of the Commonwealth Grant Scheme?

Mr Griew: The cost of HELP is the cost of running the HELP scheme. Around 80 per cent of student loans are repaid so, from a public-financing point of view, what you have just outlined is very unlikely to happen with any of the policies that are on the table at the moment.



Senator RHIANNON: Because the repayment level is such that, you are saying, it would not exceed it? Is that what I conclude?

Mr Griew: It is simply that the cost of HELP, as accounted for in the budget, is the cost of running the scheme. The difference between a grants scheme and a loans scheme is that, by and large, the loans are repaid.

Senator RHIANNON: That is what I am trying to assess, because a lot of them are not repaid. Is there not a point coming when the cost of HELP will exceed the cost of the CGS?

Mr Griew: The Australian Government Actuary's advice to us is that the foreseeable increase in the non-repayment rate is from 17 per cent to 23 per cent over the forward estimates, stabilising at about that upper amount—maybe a couple of points higher. The Australian Government Actuary's view is that the scenario you are talking about is not foreseeable.

Senator RHIANNON: So they are not converging. Ms Paul: I think we might have said this before, but we should also add that the numbers you are looking at

on page 42 include the whole range of HELP schemes—VET FEE-HELP et cetera. That is on the next page. Senator Birmingham: I think the top right-hand part of page 38 of the portfolio additional estimates

statements shows the Commonwealth Grants Scheme expenditure for 2014-15 to be estimated at close enough to $6.5 billion. We were just looking at the cost of administering HELP, which is $2.3 billion. So there is a fair disparity between the two at this stage.

Senator RHIANNON: How far into the future, Mr Griew, have your actuaries projected in order to conclude that we do not have a trend that is converging? Periodically this is said to me—that this will happen, that there is a convergence here. I understand that you have said your actuaries have looked at it and that that trend is not occurring, according to them. I am just wondering how far into the future they have made this assessment.

Mr Griew: The actuary's estimate that I was referring to was the non-repayment rate, which is an essential component for estimating the cost of the HELP scheme. We and Finance estimate together the cost of the HELP scheme and then we get the actuary's sign-off on that. We do that up to the end of the forward estimates period and the government publishes that in the budget papers. But, if you look at the distance between those two figures, it is very unlikely the kind of convergence you are raising will occur.

Senator Birmingham: In the final year of the forwards, HELP— Senator RHIANNON: What page are you on now, please? Senator Birmingham: Page 42, where you started. In the final year of the forwards, the estimated cost of

HELP comes in at $4.368 billion, which is still more than $2 billion less than the budgeted 2014-15 CGS figure. Mr Griew: And that includes all of the HELP schemes. Senator Birmingham: Mr Griew is correct. That includes VET FEE-HELP, SA HELP and so on. If there

were to be a crossover point at some stage in the future, it would certainly, based on those sorts of trajectories, be well into the future.

Mr Griew: Beyond the forward estimates. Senator RHIANNON: But you are saying that that convergence could happen? Mr Griew: No, we are not making that comment. Ms Paul: Not at all. Senator RHIANNON: I thought that you said— Mr Griew: That is not what Mr Griew was saying when he said, 'Beyond the forward estimates'. Mr Griew: We are very confident of the figures through the forward estimates—because we calculate them

with the Department of Finance and the Australian Government Actuary. They are published and that is the basis of the government's financial bills that go before the parliament.

Senator KIM CARR: But the rise is quite substantial in the space of 10 months. How can you be so confident what they are going to look like in three years?

Mr Griew: We revise them to take account of actual information that comes in. The VET FEE-HELP scheme, which is the one you referred to, is a new scheme which was coming off a low base with a sharp incline in its take-up, and that is a circumstance where you are always particularly vulnerable to the estimates changing as real figures overtake estimates. But the HECS-HELP scheme and the FEE-HELP scheme that is being incorporated into it are mature programs, the dynamics of which we understand much better and are not so volatile.



Senator RHIANNON: But haven't the figures for 2017-18 doubled since 2014-15? Isn't a that correct reading of page 42?

Mr Hart: I think that was the discussion we had with Senator Carr before about the expense in relation to HELP. What you will see included there is, basically, the debt that is not expected to be returned on a financial year basis, deferral costs, which are basically the opportunity cost that the Commonwealth wears in the difference between the bond rate that it borrows at and the concessional indexation rate that is applied to HELP loans. It also takes into account up-front discounts for HECS of 10 per cent and bonus repayments of five per cent. So the difference that you will see over the financial years there is a direct relationship to an expectation that there will be more loans taken out and also as a result of the fact that at MYEFO the government reversed its decision in relation to the bond rate versus the concessional indexation rate. Therefore, you will see that flow through in the expenses from 2014-15 to 2017-18.

Senator Birmingham: The government makes no secret of the fact that the cost of the HELP schemes increases over time and, if you are thinking that is a problem, the only ways to deal with that problem are either to have fewer student loans, which presumably means fewer students in higher education, or to make those students pay more and have the taxpayer loan less, or to make people repay at a higher rate. So the reality of the schemes we have at present, with the government's current policies that are before the parliament, is that that is the increasing trajectory of the cost of operating the HELP programs. If you want to change that trajectory of the HELP programs, you really have to contemplate one of those three measures.

Senator KIM CARR: That is just not right. Senator Birmingham: Please, I would like to hear the other alternative. Senator KIM CARR: We are not interested in your pompous pontification. Senator Birmingham: I know, Senator Carr, you are quite keen to reintroduce student caps or capped

demand, so your answer is fewer students studying, isn't it? Senator KIM CARR: You are obviously keen to sit here for a considerable time. If you keep going on with

this blather, that is what is going to happen. Senator Birmingham: I am interested to know. You say there is another way. Indeed, reading between the

lines of all of your public comments, it seems your preferred way is to remove the Gillard government reform to uncap demand.

CHAIR: Senator Leyonhjelm. Senator Birmingham: Apparently Senator Carr does not want to clarify that. Senator KIM CARR: I am not interested in engaging in your drivel. Senator Birmingham: You are obviously not misleading the— CHAIR: We have a limited amount of time, Senators. Senator KIM CARR: You are making a fool of yourself again. Senator Birmingham: Last time you said that, it turned out to be wrong. CHAIR: Senator Leyonhjelm. Senator LEYONHJELM: My questions might be quick because you may have to take them all on notice, so

we will see how we go. I know you had some earlier questions and I am hoping that I do not duplicate anything. I am told I am not, but tell me if I am.

Ms Paul: We will let you know. Senator LEYONHJELM: Thank you. Ben Phillips of NATSEM has presented an analysis suggesting that, if

higher education fees rise by various amounts, the proposed current education reforms would hurt the taxpayer because the taxpayer will fund the higher amount of concessional HELP loans. Under one scenario, higher education fees rise by as much as government subsidies fall. Is this a reasonable assumption?

Mr Griew: It is important to make the point that, if the bill passes, that will be a decision for every individual university. The evidence that we have, for example, from La Trobe University or Queensland University of Technology is that they will make those decisions in a fairly calibrated way and there are a number of courses for which both those universities have indicated they would not do that—that, in fact, their fees would increase by lower amounts. It really is too early to say that.



Ms Paul: We had bit of a discussion about it this morning. Many of the scenarios that have been put about by various organisations, whether from institutes or the Greens website, for example, and so on, start from having to make assumptions. Yes, as Mr Griew is saying, there are a range of views in the sector about where that might sit.

Senator KIM CARR: You mentioned La Trobe University. When did they provide that advice? Mr Griew: I do not have the date on me, but they indicated that for their early entry students they would limit

their 2016 charges to 10 per cent increases. That would be on average— Senator KIM CARR: The vice-chancellor said that, did he? Ms Paul: Yes, he did. That was quite a long time ago. I think it was the first announcement of this nature. Senator LEYONHJELM: I assume your answer is that you are dubious about that assumption. That is all I

was seeking. Mr Griew: Yes. Senator LEYONHJELM: Another scenario is that higher education fees rise in line with historical growth in

childcare fees. Is that reasonable? Ms Paul: They are two completely different markets. Childcare fees have generally— Senator LEYONHJELM: I did not suggest they were linked; I just want to know if it is reasonable to

assume— Ms Paul: I cannot see why it would be a reasonable assumption offhand, but I have not seen that piece of

work. Mr Griew: There is no regulatory driver there—I just make that observation. Senator LEYONHJELM: Under one scenario, higher education fees rise in line with historical growth in

school fees. Is this a reasonable assumption? Ms Paul: They are also completely different markets. Senator LEYONHJELM: So you are saying that is probably not a reasonable assumption? Ms Paul: I would have thought it would be hard to draw a parallel, but, to be fair to the author, we would have

to look at the research and see what the assumptions were and so on. From my own knowledge of those two sectors, childcare fees generally reflect wage increases of a completely different type of wage group than universities, obviously.

Senator LEYONHJELM: That is exactly my point. Ms Paul: School fees, I know, have a massive range. Government schools are not allowed to charge fees,

although they can ask for voluntary contributions. Fees in the Catholic system, which is two-thirds of the one-third that is non-government, range but they have generally what one might call reasonably low fees, and they move over the years for quite different reasons. The Catholic system has a mission based approach to how it sets fees. The independent sector, which is the one-third of the one-third that is non-government, set theirs according to the nature of the school, what the school is offering, what the parent community can bear and the market they are operating in. Perhaps that would be the part of the schooling sector in which you could see a market. With all of those things, really, I cannot think of any particular parallels with the higher ed market, but, to be fair to that author, we would need to have a closer look at it.

Senator LEYONHJELM: Another scenario is whether higher education fees might rise towards higher education fees seen overseas. Is that a reasonable assumption?

Mr Griew: Do you mean charged by universities overseas or Australian universities charging overseas students coming here?

Senator LEYONHJELM: Higher education fees in Australia would rise to become comparable with international student fees.

Mr Griew: It is interesting. The last three scenarios you have mentioned—and I certainly have been involved in lots of scenarios that people particularly talk about or draw connection with—

Ms Paul: No we had not heard that before Mr Griew: Australian universities are part of an international market for internationally mobile students, and

they are all very conscious of each other's price in competing with the internationally mobile student. But I do not think Australian universities would be looking overseas to compare; they would be looking at each other more than overseas.



Ms Paul: If you were talking about international students in Australia, that is a different matter, and we did talk about that his morning. You are talking about what universities in the UK charge. The advice generally in our conversations with the sector is that they are going to be competing with each other. The systems are entirely different. For example, while there has been much written about the supposed Americanisation of Australian universities under these reforms, the American system is entirely different. As you know, there is not a income-contingent loan system, for example.

Senator LEYONHJELM: This is not a gotcha. Would it help public debate on higher education reform if the department released estimates of possible increases in higher education fees using various assumptions?

Ms Paul: We have actually spoken about this quite a lot on evidence and on questions on notice and said that it is absolutely not in anyone's interest for us to be putting forward any numbers which could give any indication to a market.

Senator LEYONHJELM: Would it be possible to impose a real rate of interest on new HELP loans while retaining the existing indexation arrangement for existing HELP loans? I apologise if this has been asked before. Would this reduce the likelihood that fee deregulation could generate a net cost to the taxpayer? Grandfathering, in other words.

Ms Paul: Those sorts of policy approaches are always technically possible. That is not what is proposed under the reform bill.

Senator LEYONHJELM: The question was would it be possible. It would be possible? Ms Paul: Yes, the grandfathering approach is technically always—well, usually always in my experience.

But, as you know, that is not what is proposed. Senator LEYONHJELM: No, I am aware of that. I am also aware that the minister keeps talking to me.

Ideas are circulating. Senator Birmingham: He is willing to talk to anybody. If you would like to talk to him again tonight, I will

text him now. I hear he's very good at texting too! Senator LEYONHJELM: You needn't bother. I had a short discussion. Ms Paul: Both bills, including, obviously, the current bill, go to grandfathering of enrolled students, for

example. It is quite a complex matter to do technically in terms of IT and so on, but it is entirely possible in a policy sense. You will recall that there is a fundamental grandfathering of anyone who is enrolled or deferred on budget day 2014.

Senator LEYONHJELM: Yes, the argument was about planning. Mr Griew: On your question about whether it would help debate: as someone who has many times had to

resist providing that sort of information, I do not think we would have the different fee announcements that we now have from three different universities if we had said, 'This is, in effect, what the government expects.' The three different announcements so far are different fee levels, so protecting differentiation and price points in a deregulating market is not a trivial matter.

Ms Paul: We certainly gave evidence in the budget estimates last year that, in the circumstances where governments have raised to an announced level, universities have gone up to that level and stuck there. That actually happened in this country in the early 2000s—

Senator LEYONHJELM: UK too. Ms Paul: and more recently in the UK. The UK experience is absolutely that universities have raised their

fees, whereas we are already seeing exactly what these reforms should allow, and that is announcements that really range across a wide range of possibilities.

Senator LEYONHJELM: Final question: public discussions of higher education reform has included a claim that the reforms particularly advantage those students who go on to earn less income throughout their career because, compared to those who earn more income, they will have a debt for longer. I find this confusing because the lifetime value of debt repayments will be lower for those who earn less income throughout their career compared to those who earn more. Is my understanding correct?

Mr Griew: That is not quite correct. The level they repay will be lower because the amount that a student is required to pay annually is linked to their income, but a student who earns more money will have more money both net of their repayments and in gross terms and they will repay faster. But there is in the Australian education system—and you would expect this to continue—a correlation between the amount you pay for your degree and



the income you earn, and that is certainly what QUT, for example, in their fee announcements were clearly very conscious of.

Senator LEYONHJELM: Is there any disadvantage in having a debt for longer? It seems to me that the terms of the loan—

Mr Griew: Not with this loan. Ms Paul: Indeed, at zero and the pause for parenting a newborn, no. Mr Griew: And with income rated repayments. Senator LEYONHJELM: Okay, I am clear on that. Thank you very much. Senator Birmingham: If people had a choice, they would certainly pay off their home first. Senator LEYONHJELM: I was going to say, if I could get a home loan on the same terms as a HELP loan, I

would be pretty leased. Ms Paul: There have been many commentators who have made that point. Senator LEYONHJELM: Have they? It is not original. Ms Paul: It is no doubt original, but there have been commentators who have made a similar point! CHAIR: Senator Carr. Senator KIM CARR: I have some numbers here that might correct some of the things that you have

presented. NATSEM have suggested that estimated prices for selected courses would represent an increase of prices of 18 per cent for a cost recovery model, 102 for an international fees model—that is on international students studying in Australia—and that QUT and Western Australia have released prices for a limited range of courses. Matching these up like-for-like with current fees suggests Queensland University of Technology price increases of 42 per cent and University of Western Australia increases of 95 per cent. On the base of 2016, these overall price increases would be well above cost recovery and likely below the international level. Over a 10-year period, the average inflation for childcare prices has been 7.7 per cent, for secondary schools 6.3 per cent, for primary schools 5.5 per cent and for higher education 4.7 per cent. So I do not think a suggestion was being made that there was a direct comparison but rather that these were the price movements and that, if you look at the various models—

Ms Paul: Are they all NATSEM models you are referring to? Senator KIM CARR: They are all NATSEM models. I am just suggesting that some of the stuff that has been

presented here today is not the way I recall the presentation. I suggest that, if the department wants to take them up, they may wish to actually get the data directly.

Ms Paul: Yes, we said we would be happy to talk to them. Senator KIM CARR: I do not think it would be fair for you to represent what is being said as a reflection of

Dr Phillips's point— Ms Paul: I said that. I was very careful to say that, actually. I will also make the point now that you have read

that piece, which I have of course not seen, about a comparison to the childcare market and school fees stands. Indeed, it is probably underlined—

Senator KIM CARR: You specifically talked about the inflation rate for fees in those sectors. Ms Paul: That is right. I was going to go on to note that the one huge difference between markets—among

many—is there no income contingent loan arrangement. Of course, all these fees are up-front fees. They are pay-as-you-go rather than not having to pay a cent until you are earning more than $50,000.

Mr Griew: I will make a point as well. I was not commenting on Ben Phillips's work; I was not there. If somebody is summarising QUT's increases as 42 per cent, they are not doing justice to QUT.

Senator KIM CARR: I would not say they are justice, but that is another issue. What is also said— Senator Birmingham: Mr Griew, Senator Carr made a lengthy statement before particularly touching on

QUT and UWA fees. Is there anything you need to add in relation to that? Mr Griew: I am just conscious that of the 20 courses for which they have put fees out—and it is absolutely

correct to say that is not all of their courses—they range from increases that are a lot less than that— Senator KIM CARR: The average course costs are what was presented. CHAIR: What is the range? Sometimes averages are not the best way to describe something. Mr Griew: And technically you cannot do an average without knowing where the students are.



Senator KIM CARR: I want to come to the substance of what you have said, which is what you have not done.

Mr Griew: In education, for example, they are projecting an increase from $26,000 to $33,000. That is not a 42 per cent increase.

Senator Birmingham: And it is significantly below international fees. CHAIR: Thank you for those two points. We seem to have several conversations. Senator Carr, you have the

call. Senator KIM CARR: What is also said is that the HELP debt increases from $25 billion to $52 billion. The

increase in 2017-18 alone is 25 per cent. I believe you have confirmed that figure tonight—$41.5 billion to $52 billion. The budget for 2014-15 projects unpaid HELP debts to increase from 17 to 23 per cent by 2017-18, and the budget projects HELP costs to increase from $1.3 billion in 2014-15 to $2.33 billion in 2017-18. This estimate is from NATSEM: … a doubling of HELP debt over 2014 figures, and an increase of bad debt from 17% to 30% … would lead to an annual HELP budget of around $5 billion compared to $2 billion today … That is assuming a bond rate return to normal levels. In other words, the proposed savings that the government is making on the Commonwealth Grant Scheme are wiped out by the increases in the debt levels. That is the proposition that was actually put. Can I turn to the issue of—

Senator LEYONHJELM: There is another issue too, and this is where I was heading with my question as to whether it would be helpful to do some analysis and release some analysis for discussion, although I accept your point about not wanting to price-signal.

Ms Paul: Yes. Senator LEYONHJELM: One of the things that concerned me—perhaps me more than Senator Carr—is a

point made by one of the other speakers at the seminar where Dr Phillips presented his findings, which was that he did not regard the price signalling as working the way that a normal market would work, because of the presence of the HELP system. Therefore the normal price competition which you would expect—and which I have been eagerly anticipating, to be honest—may not be all that active. I am just interested in whether you have any thoughts on that.

Ms Paul: You need to look at the reforms holistically to think about this. For starters, of course, prices have never been able to be a factor competed against.

Senator LEYONHJELM: So far. Ms Paul: That is an inelegant way of saying students have never been in a position to be able to compare

price. I will come round to your points. So it is important to know that one of the essential parts of the reform is the quality indicators of learning and teaching and the new transparent way of universities actually having to show outcomes, fees, employment outcomes and so on. So the provision of market information to prospective students is a very, very important mechanism in itself.

Secondly, of course, the two planks of the reforms that tend not to be talked about so much are the extension of Commonwealth grants funding for the first time to private higher education providers, which clearly will produce a downward pricing signal on universities, and the extension of Commonwealth funding for the first time to sub-bachelor higher education qualifications, which extends the reach to a wider range of institutions, institutional join-ups, vocational higher ed join-ups et cetera. This is particularly useful in a region, for example. Those two things not only deliver pricing signals but also create a broader and more buoyant market. All of that will be reflected to prospective students through the transparency of really good market information.

In terms of the pricing signals from HECS-HELP, yes, it can be that students may be able to tolerate more, but of course they are paying CPI or no interest at all, so that is good for the student.

In terms of your point, which is getting to how universities might set prices, so far we are not seeing a break-out, because they are all, clearly, so they say—I could quote them; you do not have to take it from me—looking to each other quite carefully about where they may go. It was interesting, as an example, that the very first announcement—I am not sure; I think you were here when we mentioned it—was by the vice-chancellor of La Trobe, who said quite early on in the piece that, if the forms got through et cetera, he would raise fees for early-entry students by 10 per cent.

Senator KIM CARR: Can I turn to the issue of NCRIS funding? Ms Paul: Sure.



Senator KIM CARR: Have you got the officers there for that? Ms Paul: Yes we do. Senator KIM CARR: How many facilities and projects are currently supported by NCRIS funds. Ms Paul: Yes. We should have that. Senator KIM CARR: We will see how we go depending on the length of the answers. Mr English: There are currently 27 facilities that NCRIS supports. Senator KIM CARR: How many separate infrastructure locations does this comprise? Mr English: There are 222. Senator KIM CARR: Can you confirm that NCRIS facilities employ more than 1,500 technical experts,

researchers and managers? Mr English: I can. Our current estimate is 1,700. Senator KIM CARR: Is that correct, or is it 1,500? Mr Griew: Our current estimate is 1,700. Ms Paul: We have given the 1,500 figure before. The updated estimate is 1,700. Senator KIM CARR: Is it correct that the network supports around 30,000 researchers both here and

overseas? Mr English: We have updated that figure as well with more data collected recently and we now think it is

35,000. Senator KIM CARR: Is it correct that $2.5 billion in taxpayers' money has been invested in the NCRIS

infrastructure since the program was established under the Howard government? Mr English: That is correct. Senator KIM CARR: Can you tell me whether or not it is true that this is leveraged from state governments,

industry, universities, research agencies and the like at a rate of $3 for every $1 of Commonwealth investment? Mr English: We typically refer to the figure of another billion dollars of leverage over and above the $2.5

billion that— Senator KIM CARR: So you are saying one for one. Universities Australia is saying— Ms Paul: No. Mr English: No, it is 2.5 to one. Senator KIM CARR: It is 2.5. Mr English: Yes. Ms Paul: It is 2.5 from government and leveraging another one. Senator KIM CARR: I see. So around the other way? Ms Paul: Yes. Senator KIM CARR: I would say to you that Universities Australia is asserting that it is $3 leveraged for

every $1 from the Commonwealth. You think that is wrong? Mr English: I am not sure. Ms Paul: We best have a look at that. Senator KIM CARR: Fair enough—you dispute that. How much of that would come from overseas? Mr English: I would have to take that on notice and interrogate our data. Senator KIM CARR: I am talking about overseas research agencies. My recollection is NASA and a few

others— Ms Paul: That is right. Mr English: There are certainly some good examples. Senator KIM CARR: including the European Space Agency. Mr Griew: There are serious overseas players engaged in several of these capabilities. Senator KIM CARR: How many international users participate in the NCRIS facilities?



Mr English: We need to take that one on notice as well. Again, there is substantial engagement internationally between the projects and researchers overseas, but I do not have that number now.

Senator KIM CARR: Given the substantial investment that has already been lodged in NCRIS facilities, what is the role of the Commonwealth in ensuring they continue?

Senator Birmingham: We have provided, notwithstanding the fact that a funding cliff was left by your government, funding in the higher education reform package. I invite you to support its passage, and, therefore, funding will be available.

Senator KIM CARR: I understand that a number of NCRIS facilities are now beginning wind-down processes. Is that true?

Mr Griew: There are some that have started talking to us as they are concerned as the end of this financial year, and their funding, certainly draws close.

Senator KIM CARR: How many? Ms Zizi: Fourteen. Mr English: Fourteen projects have written to either express their view about the current funding situation or

to ask about the current funding situation. I would need to interrogate that material further to answer the question you asked.

Senator KIM CARR: Thank you. Have any facilities already started undertaking redundancy processes? Mr English: Not to our knowledge. Senator KIM CARR: Have you any information on the number of NCRIS personnel, people employed in

NCRIS facilities, who have left because of the funding uncertainty? Mr English: No. Senator KIM CARR: Is it possible to get a copy of the 14 letters that have been sent to the department? Ms Paul: We would probably need to ask them, but we can do that if you would like us to. Senator KIM CARR: Yes, could you please take that on notice. Ms Paul: Sure. Senator KIM CARR: Is the department intending to provide wind-down funding for any of the NCRIS

facilities? Ms Paul: It depends on the outcome of the legislation, obviously. Senator KIM CARR: I think we have been through that. I cannot see where the votes are going to come from

for the legislation, so is the government now proposing to close down these facilities? Ms Paul: Clearly the government is still proceeding with the legislation, so, no, we have not undertaken any

of those activities. Senator KIM CARR: Are you aware of any industry or international research partners who have pulled out

of NCRIS facilities due to the funding uncertainty? Mr English: Not to my knowledge. Senator KIM CARR: How many of the NCRIS facilities or capabilities have data collection and

management as their core function? Mr English: The overwhelming majority. Senator KIM CARR: What happens to that data collection function if these facilities close? Mr English: It is a matter for the custodians of the data in those projects. In some cases the data is the

agglomeration of material from a range of partners. In some cases there will be an ongoing entity of some description.

Senator KIM CARR: I am not in the habit of quoting the National Commission of Audit, but they did make the observation that the cost of re-establishment would be significantly more than required for the ongoing operation and maintenance of these facilities. Is that correct?

Ms Paul: I do not think we have costed that, because at the moment the government is proceeding with the bill—similar to your wind-down question.

Senator KIM CARR: So you have no contingency plans? Ms Paul: No.



Senator Birmingham: The government came up with the contingency plan, Senator Carr, because we found that they were unfunded when we came to office and we came up with a plan to fund them. I invite you to help its passage through the Senate. Rather than sit here crying crocodile tears, there is a solution that was in last year's budget that we have been transparent about and that we are still waiting to have—

Senator KIM CARR: No, you have not been transparent about it. You have not been transparent at all. The question of locking this bill in was an afterthought; it was not discussed with people prior to the introduction of the bill. Was it the case that funding arrangements were put in place by the previous government of $185 million, not $150 million, in the 2013-14 budget to fund NCRIS to the end of 2014-15? Is that correct?

Mr Griew: Over two years. Senator KIM CARR: To what period? Mr Griew: It is the period until 2015, so it was a two-year— Senator KIM CARR: Did any strings come with that? Was there any suggestion that this be an offset for

anything else? Mr Griew: It was a time limited budget measure. Senator KIM CARR: The minister, in his BHERT speech, 13 months from the expiry date of the funding of

the previous government, said: Without this funding we would be unable to continue our work to address the world’s most pressing problems and challenges. Now, within four months of the end of the financial year, are you able to tell me what certainty NCRIS facilities have about their funding?

Senator Birmingham: We want to give them some certainty. We want to give them some funding beyond that which your government had provided for. We have proposed a means to do so. You are standing in the way of that.

Senator KIM CARR: The Senate has rejected your blackmail, pure and simple. It is a straight blackmail effort and it will not be accepted.

Senator Birmingham: It is not blackmail, Senator Carr. Once again—and we have discussed this a couple of times today—I know your government thought everything could be funded from the money tree. Our government actually believes that, if you are finding money for one thing, you have to find it from somewhere, especially when you are running a significant fiscal deficit already.

Senator KIM CARR: You could find $14 billion for a propaganda campaign at the drop of a hat! Senator Birmingham: Everything we have done has been funded. We have proposed how we would fund

interest into the future, beyond the period of time that your government went to the last election proposing to fund it. We are offering a solution. Right now you command the greatest number of—

CHAIR: Minister! Senator Birmingham: votes in the Senate and are blocking it. CHAIR: Minister and Senator Carr! Senator Rhiannon has some further questions, so I would appreciate both

of you being able to give her the time to ask them. Senator RHIANNON: Thank you. Ms Paul, in response to an earlier question when we were talking about

fees, you claimed that opening up to private providers would put downward pressure on prices. What is your evidence for that?

Ms Paul: We have said this in each estimates, that you need to look at the reforms as a whole. What I was saying in evidence to Senator Leyonhjelm was that the extension of Commonwealth funding to private higher education providers for the first time takes a financial burden off them which then allows them to be more competitive with universities. Indeed if that has been—

Senator RHIANNON: The question was about putting downward pressure on prices. Is it modelling? Is it experience from other jurisdictions? What is your evidence? That is all the question is.

Ms Paul: I would like to be precise about that, so I will take that on notice. But I note that I think I might have said this this morning—

Senator RHIANNON: Why do you have to take it on notice? You regularly say to estimates— CHAIR: Senator Rhiannon, you have spoken twice over the Secretary. Ms Paul, can you finish your answer?

Then you can follow up, Senator.



Ms Paul: I was talking about broad policy settings. We have spoken here before that it is just a market economics equation that the broadening of a market, with a wider range of pricing possibilities, is likely to put downward pressure on fees that might potentially be set by universities.

What I was going to say was that the head of the Council of Private Higher Education providers has also said that he expects his members to pass on the Commonwealth funding, and that would include price reduction and fee reduction.

Senator RHIANNON: It does sound more like ideology than evidence, and that is not what the question was—

Ms Paul: It is sort of economics, I think. Senator RHIANNON: The question was about evidence— Senator Birmingham: Senator Rhiannon is not so big on markets and economics. Senator RHIANNON: Why I ask the question is because you regularly talk, and you have said it a number of

times today, about the issue of downward pressure on prices. So it was fair enough to ask for the evidence. Ms Paul: Sure. Mr Griew: I can give you some figures that go to that, if you want. If you take what Mr McComb has said

publicly on behalf of COPHE and apply that principle to the reduction from current prices charged by a range of their members by new government funding, then the prices for some of their members would still be higher but some would be at a considerable discount to what the universities would be expected to provide. That is a clear indication of lower price points in that part of the private sector, which goes to your point.

Senator RHIANNON: That is surely just speculation from the industry? Ms Paul: No, that is the representative of the private providers speaking on their behalf. Senator RHIANNON: Yes—that is what I mean. Mr Griew: His account was that he had spoken to his membership, and his membership were of that view. If

you took that principle and followed it through it would establish price points for a significant part of the private sector that would be below university price points.

Senator RHIANNON: Isn't it the case that Bruce Chapman has said that income-contingent loans put even more upward pressure on prices?

Ms Paul: I think I addressed that in quite a long answer to Senator Leyonhjelm. We only have a minute, so I will probably cross-refer back to that evidence.

Mr Griew: Professor Chapman has also made submissions to committees— Ms Paul: The other inquiry. Mr Griew: inquiring into this, where he goes further on that point. Senator Birmingham: I think that much of Professor Chapman's findings are at odds with some of those of

Mr Phillips too. Senator KIM CARR: In a statement he made recently at the University of Canberra seminar, Professor

Chapman actually indicated that the opportunity for price gouging is substantial. CHAIR: Any other questions for outcome 3? Senator RHIANNON: I have, but I will put them on notice. CHAIR: Thank you. Thank you ballboys and ballgirls! The committee now stands adjourned. Thank you

Hansard, thank you secretariat and thank you officers. Committee adjourned at 23:00


senate - parliament of australia/media/committees/eet_ctte/...mrs marguerite de sosua, acting branch...

Documents