Commonwealth of Australia Explanatory Memoranda Commonwealth of Australia Explanatory Memoranda[Index] [Search] [Download] [Bill] [Help]
2010-2011-2012-2013
THE PARLIAMENT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
STUDENT IDENTIFIERS BILL 2013
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM
(Circulated by authority of the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Science and Research,
Minister for Small Business, The Hon. Chris Bowen MP)
STUDENT IDENTIFIERS BILL 2013
OUTLINE
The Student Identifiers Bill 2013 ("the Bill") is an initiative of the Council of Australian
Governments (COAG) that provides for the introduction of a student identifier for individuals
undertaking nationally recognised vocational education and training (VET) from 1 January 2014.
The Bill sets out how the identifier will be assigned, collected, used and disclosed. The Bill
provides for the creation of an authenticated transcript of an individuals record of nationally
recognised training undertaken or completed after 1 January 2014. The Bill establishes a Student
Identifiers Agency (the Agency) which will administer the student identifier scheme and also
provides for the appointment of the Agencys Chief Executive Officer (CEO).
The provisions of the Bill will commence by proclamation, with the Agency expected to be
established in July 2013. The student identifier scheme is designed to improve the transparency
and responsiveness of the VET sector in a number of ways.
Currently, there is no single repository of records of VET student enrolments and achievements.
This means that individuals cannot access a consolidated electronic record of VET attainments
over their lifetime and, in turn, registered training organisations (RTOs) may be unable to readily
confirm students pre-requisite course work or properly assess their prior learning. This also
affects the capacity of state, territory and Commonwealth policy makers to assess how the VET
system is performing and to administer government student subsidy programs.
The introduction of a student identifier will rectify each of these issues. VET students will be
able to create an authenticated transcript of their training, regardless of where it was undertaken.
This means they will not need to find several different certificates to show an employer as they
move from the VET training they did in school, to TAFE and into the workforce. Their
enrolment and achievement information will be available in one consolidated electronic record.
Similarly for RTOs, they will be able to quickly confirm prior study and where necessary, credit
transfers. For government and policy makers, de-identified information will provide a clearer
picture of how many students are in the VET system, for what length of time, and the pathways
students are taking through the sector. Strict protocols governing research will be developed in
conjunction with all states and territories through the Standing Council on Tertiary Education,
Skills and Employment (the Standing Council). Over time, the scheme will better assist
governments with the management of their student entitlement programs.
With an estimated 2.7 million enrolments in VET each year, collecting and analysing
information is essential to ensuring that the VET system can respond to students preferences
and to the skills needs of industry and the economy.
The student identifier is a randomly generated alpha-numeric code which will be issued upon
application to individuals who undertake nationally recognised VET. Once assigned, VET
students will use their identifier each time they enrol. RTOs will not be able to issue a VET
qualification or statement of attainment to students who do not have an identifier, unless an
appropriate exemption has been given by the Commonwealth Minister.
While the student identifier scheme will improve the de-identified information available on VET
students, the Bill safeguards the privacy of individuals. It does this by establishing a
confidentiality scheme which provides that student identifiers must not be collected, used or
2
disclosed without the individuals authorisation except in certain prescribed circumstances, as
provided for in the Bill or as may be authorised by the regulations.
The Bill requires any personal information collected solely for the purpose of applying for the
student identifier to be destroyed. This means, for example, that details of the identification
document that an individual uses to apply for an identifier, such as their Medicare number, will
not be kept by the Agency or any other entity that may have assisted the student in the
application process, unless it was also collected for another purpose which necessitates the
keeping of the information. The Bill also requires the CEO of the Agency, and any other entity
that has a record of student identifiers, to protect those records from misuse or unauthorised
access. Any contravention of these requirements is taken by the Bill to be an interference with
privacy under the Privacy Act 1988 (the Privacy Act) that can be investigated by the Australian
Information Commissioner. Further, the Agency will only store information about an
individuals identity and contact details, noting that VET activity records will continue to be
separately stored by the National Centre for Vocational Education and Research (NCVER) in its
National VET Provider collection.
The Agency will be established as an independent statutory authority. Its CEO will be appointed
by the Commonwealth Minister, following consultation with the Standing Council. The Bill
requires the CEO to submit an annual report to the Commonwealth Minister for presentation to
the Parliament and to provide a copy of the same to the Standing Council. In the interests of
sound financial accountability, the Agency will be a prescribed agency for the purposes of the
Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 (the FMA Act).
The introduction of the student identifier will be supported by the inclusion of additional
requirements to the Standards for RTOs under the National Vocational Education and Training
Regulator Act 2011 (the NVETR Act) and the Australian Quality Training Framework.
FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT
The Agency will be financed from an existing allocation to the National Training System
Commonwealth Own Purpose Expenditure program, within the Department of Industry,
Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education.
Overall, the development and introduction of the student identifier scheme will cost $21.6m over
the four years from 2012-13 to 2015-16. This will include $6.7m over three years for the
establishment of the Student Identifier Agency which will commence operations on 1 July 2013.
The balance of the $21.6m has been provided over the four years to 2015-16 to fund the cost of
the IT build ($7.7m which includes capital expenditure of $5.4m) and the cost of a Departmental
taskforce that will manage the implementation of the new agency ($7.2m).
2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16
$m $m $m $m
$8.963 $7.064 $2.844 $2.768
3
Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights
Prepared in accordance with Part 3 of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011
STUDENT IDENTIFIERS BILL 2013
This Bill is compatible with the human rights and freedoms recognised or declared in the
international instruments listed in section 3 of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act
2011.
Overview of the Bill
As part of the Australian Governments commitment to improve the transparency and
responsiveness of the vocational education and training (VET) sector, a student identifier will be
provided to individuals undertaking nationally recognised VET training as of 1 January 2014.
The student identifier will be linked to records of nationally recognised training undertaken and
the resulting qualifications achieved by learners over their lifetime. The student identifier will
also help generate more accurate information on what nationally recognised education and
training is being undertaken and what qualifications are achieved. The use of this information is
to support a more flexible, transparent and demand-driven VET system in order to assess the
quality of educational outcomes nation-wide and more effectively target Australias skills
development needs into the future.
The student identifier scheme aims to enable:
individuals to find, collate and authenticate all of their educational attainments into a
single electronic record. Currently, there is no single repository of information for
students in the VET sector that maps their enrolment and achievement records across
their lifetime;
registered training organisations (RTOs) to access consolidated individual enrolment and
achievement information at the time a learner is enrolling in order to affirm pre-requisite
course work and assess credit transfers; and
government policy makers and researchers to access de-identified enrolment and
achievement data at the individual student level in order to understand the pathways
students take, assess the progress of disadvantaged students and better support the
management of government student subsidy programs.
Human Rights Implications
The proposed measure engages the following human rights:
The right to education
The Bill engages the right to education contained in Article 13 of the International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).
In particular, article 13(2)(b) states that secondary education, in all its different forms, including
technical and vocational secondary education shall be made generally available and accessible to
all by every appropriate means and in particular by the progressive introduction of free
education.
The introduction of the Bill will promote an individuals right to education by:
4
improving the accessibility of technical and vocational education. RTOs will be able to
use the student identifier to facilitate an individuals enrolment by accessing a
consolidated, authenticated transcript of that individuals existing qualifications and prior
learning. This will mean that an individual need not miss out on enrolment due to
difficulties demonstrating prior learning and will therefore expand the accessibility of
technical and vocational education; and
ensuring that eligibility for subsidised training can be determined with a higher degree of
confidence than is currently possible. The current National Partnership Agreement on
Skills Reform commits jurisdictions to create a more accessible and equitable training
system through introducing and strengthening a national entitlement to a government
subsidised training place to a minimum of the first Certificate III qualification. It also
commits jurisdictions to improve training participation and qualification completions.
Student identifiers will be used to link the outcomes of the current National Partnership
Agreement on Skills Reform with the VET records held in the national collection. This
means that subsidised places will go to those who most need them. This will further
ensure that more students will be able to gain access to VET.
The Bill may also have the effect of limiting an individuals access to education.
Under article 4 of ICESCR, State Parties may subject rights under that Covenant only to such
limitations as are determined by law and only in so far as this may be compatible with the nature
of these rights and solely for the purpose of promoting the general welfare in a democratic
society.
The Bill may limit the right to education by prohibiting an RTO from issuing a VET
qualification or a VET statement of attainment to an individual who has not been assigned an
identifier. This prohibition will not apply in relation to certain RTO, qualifications and
individuals as specified by the Commonwealth Minister by legislative instrument.
To the extent that an RTO is prohibited from issuing a VET qualification or a VET statement of
attainment, this will not initially limit the right to education as this will not inhibit students from
accessing vocational education and training. However, for those students who do not obtain a
student identifier (which is expected to be very few) and are not covered by an exemption, access
to education may be limited if their ability to undertake further training is dependent on the
student providing a VET qualification or a VET statement of attainment for a prerequisite
course.
The purpose of the prohibition is to ensure that there is maximum participation of students in the
student identifier scheme and the exemptions to the prohibition will be necessarily limited to
maintain the integrity of the scheme. This will ensure that the above mentioned benefits will
more likely flow to the majority of the students in the VET system.
As there is no fee attached to applying for a student identifier, the application process is designed
for maximum ease and flexibility and there is no detrimental effect on a students study resulting
from obtaining a student identifier, this limitation on the right to education is necessary,
reasonable and proportionate to ensure that the above mentioned benefits will flow to students
5
and is for the purpose of promoting the general welfare of students. This is therefore consistent
with the right to education under Article 13 of the ICESCR.
The right to work
The right to work in article 6 of ICESCR includes the right of everyone to have the opportunity
to gain a living by work which they freely choose or accept and will take appropriate steps to
safeguard this right.
Article 6(2) states that the steps to be taken to achieve the full realisation of this right shall
include technical and vocational guidance and training programmes, policies and techniques to
achieve steady economic, social and cultural development and full and productive employment
under conditions safeguarding fundamental political and economic freedoms to the individual.
For the reasons outlined above, the Bill promotes the right to education by improving the
accessibility of technical and vocational education and progressively realising the right to
secondary education being general available and accessible. As the Bill will improve access to
education, this will ensure that students will have greater opportunities to work in areas that they
choose and will therefore also promote the right to work.
Where formal recognition of a qualification is a prerequisite to work, the prohibition on RTOs
from issuing a VET qualification or a VET statement of attainment to an individual who has not
been assigned an identifier may limit the right to work.
Under article 4 of ICESCR, State Parties may subject rights under that Covenant only to such
limitations as are determined by law and only in so far as this may be compatible with the nature
of these rights and solely for the purpose of promoting the general welfare in a democratic
society.
As outlined above, the prohibition on issuing a qualification is to ensure that there is maximum
participation of students in the student identifier scheme and the exemptions to the prohibition
will be necessarily limited to maintain the integrity of the scheme. As this legitimate policy aim
is achieved in a way that is reasonable, necessary and proportionate (as outlined above), the Bill
will be consistent with the right to work under article 6 of the ICESCR.
The right to privacy
The Bill may engage the right to privacy under Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights (ICCPR) as the Bill authorises the collection, use and disclosure of student
identifiers.
Article 17 prohibits unlawful or arbitrary interferences with a persons privacy. It provides that
persons have the right to the protection of the law against such interference. In order for the
interference with privacy not to be ,,arbitrary, any interference with privacy must be in
accordance with the provisions, aims and objectives of the ICCPR and should be reasonable in
the particular circumstances. Reasonableness, in this context, incorporates notions of
proportionality to the end sought and necessity in the circumstances.
This Bill creates a regime of student identifiers, unique alpha-numeric codes allocated to
students and an Agency to manage the scheme.
6
The primary purpose of the scheme established by the Bill is to assign a student identifier to
individuals participating in nationally recognised VET. Ordinarily student identifiers will be
stored with information regarding a particular person as part of a student record, such that the
student record containing the student identifier would likely contain personal information when
taken as a whole. It is anticipated that attaching student identifiers to these records will make it
easier for VET system entities holding this information to identify the individual that the
information is about, and these entities will also be able to ask the Agency to verify that a
particular student identifier belongs to a particular individual.
The Bill may limit the privacy of an individual as the Bill authorises the CEO (or a delegate of
the CEO1) to collect, use or disclose a students identifier for the purpose of performing her or
his functions and these collections, uses and disclosures will often also involve the personal
information of an identifiable student. However, it is important to note that the CEO will be
required to comply with the Privacy Act when collecting, using or disclosing personal
information, including student records that contain a student identifier. These authorisations are
necessary to ensure that the CEO can properly perform her or his functions under the Bill, which
in turn ensures greater access to education (as outlined above).
The Bill also authorises the CEO to disclose a students identifier for certain research activities
where those research activities relate to education or training and comply with the protocols
established by the Standing Council. The Bill allows the collection, use and disclosure of
student identifiers in the event of unlawful activities and law enforcement purposes. These
authorisations are necessary to allow for research and law enforcement which will ultimately be
for the benefit of students and the wider community.
This collection, use or disclosure is limited as the Bill will only allow such an authorisation if it
is reasonably necessary for the purposes of law enforcement. While ,,reasonably necessary is
lower threshold than ,,necessary, such an authorisation is required to ensure that the legitimate
policy objective of law enforcement can be achieved which will ultimately benefit students and
the wider community.
In addition, the Bill allows for the collection, use or disclosure of student identifiers where
authorised by regulations. It is envisaged that the regulations will provide authorisations for the
collection, use and disclosure to a limited number of entities, primarily in the VET sector. These
entities are likely to include former and current registered training organisations (as defined by
the NVETR Act), schools whose students undertake a VET course as part of their education, the
NCVER, VET-related bodies and VET Admission Bodies.
The authorisations which will be contained in the regulations will provide appropriate
permissions for these entities to undertake their existing functions and continue with existing
collections, uses and disclosures of student information once the student identifier is attached to
that student data. However, the collection, use and disclosures of an identifier will only be for
set purposes, meaning that decision makers will not have a wide discretion in how to collect, use
or disclose the student identifier. These permissions are also necessary to allow for the proper
administration of the VET sector and will enhance access to education and ultimately benefit
students. These purposes are for:
1
Please note that the Bill allows the CEO to delegate his or her functions to a staff member or a secondee to the
Student Identifiers Agency. It is necessary for the CEO to delegate his or her functions to these officers as it is
envisaged that it will be administratively unfeasible for the CEO to personally exercise all their functions and
powers under the Bill.
7
the prevention, detection, investigation or remedying of misconduct of a serious nature;
assisting RTOs to meet their reporting obligations under the VET standards;
establishing an individuals eligibility to a training subsidy;
the delivery of a VET course;
the verification of a student identifier;
resolving problems in the assignment of a student identifier (as outlined in clause 11 of
the Bill);
the preparation and auditing of the National VET Statistics;
conducting education-related policy development and research;
the preparation of an authenticated VET transcript;
auditing publicly registered training organisations and publically funded VET training or
programs;
allowing VET Regulators to perform their functions under their legislation; and
when the law otherwise requires disclosure (such as when a subpoena is issued for such
information).
To the extent that these authorisations for the use, collection and disclosure of student identifiers
impact on the right to privacy, this will not be an arbitrary interference as the authorisations are
for legitimate policy objectives. These policy objectives include improving the accessibility of
vocational education and training and the promotion of free education which advances the right
to education (as outlined above) and is consistent with the aims and objectives of the ICCPR.
Additionally, the Bill provides significant safeguards to the privacy of individuals by providing
for the following protections:
individuals have control over their student identifier and can determine who can have
access to the personal and educational records associated with it. The student identifier
IT system is specifically being designed and built to incorporate these important
safeguards.
while the Bill does provide authorisations for the collection, use and disclosure of a
student identifier which may lead to the disclosure of personal information, the Bill does
not replace the protections provided to personal information under the Privacy Act (or the
equivalent legislation within the State and Territory jurisdictions). Therefore any entity
that collects, uses or discloses a student identifier will have to comply with the
protections of this information under the Bill as well as the Privacy Act (to the extent that
the collection, use or disclosure involves personal information).
8
in addition, the Bill extends the application of the Privacy Act by providing that if an
entity breaches clauses 10, 15 or 16 of the Bill then the entity is taken to be an agency
within the meaning of the Privacy Act and will therefore mean that the Australian
Information Commissioner may exercise their powers under Part V of that Act with
regards to this entity.
the legislation will also ensure that if an RTO, VET admission body or any other entity
collects personal information solely for the purpose of applying for the student identifier
on behalf of an individual, then this information must be destroyed. This means that
details of the identification document submitted will not be kept by any entity that may
have assisted the student in the application process.
personal and training information will be stored separately. An individuals identity and
contact details will be held by the Agency, separate from their VET activity records held
by the NCVER in its National VET Provider collection.
by storing these records separately, it will not be possible to identify an individual by
their student identifier alone and will therefore mean that there is greater protection of the
individuals privacy.
In addition, individuals applying for a student identifier or interacting with the scheme will be
provided with an appropriate notice as to how their information will be handled. This notice will
cover:
the legislative basis for the collection of the information;
whether other information about the individual will be collected from other sources;
what the information will be used for;
the consequences for the individual, if the information is not collected;
who the information may be disclosed to; and
how the individual may access their information
To the extent that the individuals right to privacy is impacted by the Bill, any such impact is
lawfully enacted, limits the discretion of a decision maker to interfere with an individuals
privacy, and is not arbitrary as it is done to achieve legitimate policy objectives. These legitimate
policy objectives are achieved in a way that is reasonable, necessary and proportionate.
Conclusion
The Bill is compatible with human rights because it promotes the rights to education and work
under Articles 13 and 6 of the ICESCR and protects the right to privacy under Article 17 of the
ICCPR. Any potential limitations to these rights are reasonable, necessary and proportionate in
achieving the Bills legitimate policy objectives.
9
Regulation Impact Statement
Background
In 2010, the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) directed the Ministerial Council for
Tertiary Education and Employment (MCTEE) to develop a business case for the unique student
identifier (USI) for the Vocational Education and Training VET) sector.
The purpose of the USI would be to:
`To record all accredited education and training undertaken and qualifications achieved
for each individual who access Vocational Education and Training (VET) over his or her
lifetime.'
In February 2011, COAG considered a preparatory business case for a VET USI and asked
MCTEE to prepare the final business case based on the following five design principles:
the USI will be established as a coherent national initiative with agreed administrative
arrangements for the issuance, storage and use of the USI;
a cross-sectoral framework for a unique identifier will be established for the whole
education and training system, with the first phase of implementation in the VET sector;
the USI will be based on a student-centred approach;
the proposed model for the USI is one where student identifying information will be
quarantined in a USI register, and stored separately from education and training activity;
and
other state-based unique identifiers, such as a Victorian Student Number (VSN) or a
Queensland Learner Unique Identifier (LUI)2, can be accommodated in the design.
The final business case, is due to be considered by COAG in early 2012.
The final business case is based on extensive work undertaken in three separate streams:
a broad public consultation process, including the issuing of a discussion paper, the
opportunity for stakeholders to comment and targeted stakeholder interviews (undertaken
by the NOUS Group);
an examination of the technical requirements, including the development of High Level
Business Requirements, High Level Costs and Benefits and High Level Solution (by
3pillars asia pacific); and
an examination of the legal, governance and privacy issues (undertaken by Information
Integrity Solutions).
The final business case was also informed by an Expert Advisory Group that included:
Mr Peter Grant, Former Chair of the NCVER Board and Former Deputy Secretary,
Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs;
Mr Bill Burmester, Former Deputy Secretary, DEEWR;
Mr Lawrence Millar, technical and privacy expert who worked on similar reforms in
New Zealand; and
2
Only Victoria and Queensland operate state-based unique identifiers. .
10
Dr Tom Karmel, Managing Director, National Centre for Vocational Education Research.
This RIS is also informed by the responses to the Consultation RIS issued in December 2011.
1. Statement of the Problem
The National Centre for Vocational Education Research (NCVER)3 currently collects and holds
unit level records of student enrolment and achievement in the VET sector, but these records are
not mapped to an individual over the lifetime. This means that students cannot access the data
and the data are able to be used to best effect by Registered Training Organisations (RTOs),
government policy makers or researchers.
The inability to access enrolment and achievement data across the lifetime of individual VET
students inconveniences students, affects the efficiency of RTOs and undermines the capacity of
state/territory and Commonwealth policy makers to develop evidence-based programs and
ensure accountability for the investments made.
This issue will be accentuated with the transparency agenda under the new National Agreement
for Skills and Workforce Development. Under the planned reforms, it will be essential to be
able to readily assemble student record data so students themselves, RTOs and governments can
better understand how the VET system is performing. This represents a basic building block of
the VET system and requires government action to establish a nationally consistent approach that
covers all participants in VET in Australia.
Students
Currently, students have little or no control over their VET activity data and cannot easily find,
collate and authenticate all of their educational attainments in a single portable record. Within
the VET sector, students often enrol and attend courses with multiple training providers - there
are approximately 2.3 million enrolments in the VET system each year and it is estimated that
some 30 per cent of students use multiple providers. When students need to create a transcript of
their achievements for enrolment, to show an employer or to establish credit for recognised prior
learning, they currently need to contact and request information from more than one source.
This situation is exacerbated when training providers go out of business and their records are
either lost or unrecoverable.
Registered Training Organisations
The limitation in being able to readily access consolidated individual enrolment and achievement
records over the lifetime is also a problem for RTOs, particularly at the time of student
enrolment, in confirming appropriate pre-requisite course work and in assessing recognised prior
learning.
Governments
The data currently collected by the NCVER is not sufficient to support the student-centred (or
entitlements based) training models that are being implemented in some states/territories. In
3
The National Centre for Vocational Education Research is a not-for-profit company owned by state,
territory and federal ministers responsible for training. It is responsible for collecting, managing, analysing,
evaluating and communicating research and statistics about vocational education and training (VET)
nationally.
11
addition, the number of unique students undertaking VET cannot be accurately identified and
there is no way of knowing the extent to which individuals undertake VET with a number of
providers over a given period.
Further, the inability to access and analyse VET enrolment and achievement data at the
individual student level over the lifetime means that state/territory and Commonwealth policy
makers cannot readily understand the pathways students are taking, assess the progress of
disadvantaged students or whether individual students are accessing resources at agreed levels.
In response, some states such as Victoria and Queensland, have already introduced unique
student identifiers to assist in their own policy development and program administration. While
these have improved the ability of individual states to create student records, this approach has
limited value if students move and study across state and territory borders.
The lack of records identified at the individual level also limits the ability of governments to
monitor issues arising from or improvements in the performance and transparency of the VET
system. The ability to evaluate the achievement of education and training policy goals -
including the monitoring of COAG performance measures - is limited. This limitation restricts
the ability of policy makers to respond in a timely manner to industry needs as the labour market
and economic environment changes.
Analysts and researchers
Currently, longitudinal research databases for the VET sector can only be created through
statistical matching. This limits the capacity of researchers to examine the distribution of
educational opportunities and attainment across the population and analyse educational pathways
over an individuals lifecycle.
2. Objectives
When COAG considered a preparatory business case in February 2011, it was agreed that the
purpose of a USI, as a response to the problems associated with accessing student records, would
be to:
"record all accredited education and training undertaken and qualifications achieved for
each individual who accesses Vocational Education and Training (VET) over his or her
lifetime".
The overarching objective of such a mechanism would be to establish a solid framework of
information which can support and enable a flexible and demand-driven VET system in
Australia. It would be expected to facilitate an information-base that can support all users of the
system in an equitable and efficient way and promote continued improvement in the VET
system. It would also be expected to contribute to the wider VET reform agenda by enabling
greater transparency in the system and improving accountability and responsiveness across
providers and governments.
3. Statement of Options
The principal options initially considered in response to the problem are as follows:
No change
National Unique Student Identifier
12
During the consultations undertaken for the initiative, two further options were proposed. They
are:
State-based Unique Student Identifiers
Data matching of existing records
All four options are described below and are evaluated in section 4.
Description of options
(1) No Change
The status quo would remain with only two jurisdictions (Victoria and Queensland) having
unique student identifiers applying to the VET sector. Under this option, there would be no
mechanism for a student who has studied in other jurisdictions to find, collate and authenticate
their education attainments without approaching each individual RTO.
(2) National Unique Student Identifier
Under this option, a single national unique student identifier would be implemented to allow the
creation of individual lifetime VET records. Each student would be given a single number on
enrolment. This number would be included on enrolment and achievement records, generated by
RTOs across the country and stored, as currently occurs, with NCVER. Student identifying
information would be quarantined and stored separately from national data collections of
activity. The USI register would be managed by an appropriate agency (the USI service), with
strict controls to ensure privacy.
Students would be able to request their full VET transcripts from the USI service which would
draw the data together from the NCVER data base. This would provide students with greater
control of their VET activity by making it easier to find, collate and authenticate all their
educational attainments in a single portable record, provide a training history beyond the life of
the training provider and enable future services and innovations such as e-portfolios and
qualification-verification systems.
Policy makers would be able to analyse data held in the NCVER data base on a unit record,
whole of lifetime basis while, at the same time, protecting the privacy of individual students -
the data would include the USI itself, but would not be able to be re-identified as education and
training data would be kept separate from the students personal information held by the USI
service.
This option would be supported by legislation that defines arrangements for the collection,
storage and disclosure of personal information that will be necessary to establish identifiers for
students. It would also establish limits on the use of identifiers, thus reducing the risk of
,,function creep, and would create a service that would be responsible for the creation and secure
storage of identifiers. Furthermore, the identifiers and associated personal information will be
quarantined in a USI register and stored separately from education and training activity.
To enable this option to work effectively, the USI would need to:
be mandatory for all students when enrolling in any accredited VET course, whether in
publicly or privately funded places; and
extend to all students including international students undertaking accredited VET
programs under the Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF) at an Australian
Registered Training Organisation (RTO).
13
Appropriate technical solutions and protocols would be put in place to accommodate existing
state-based identifier systems.
(3) State-based Unique Student Identifiers (with linkages)
This option would involve a federated database system - each state government would have its
own system supported by a virtual database which queries each separate system and draws the
information together. There wouldnt be a need for the same system to be implemented in each
state, but each state would need to adhere to common standards sufficient to share identifying
information to draw together an individuals record.
Under this option, each state and territory would implement a unique student identifier system
independently (following the Victorian and Queensland lead). State systems would then be
linked by:
a national indexing system that would be used to allocate an additional number to
identify and track students as they move between state systems; or
personally identifiable information (such as name, address, date of birth), allowing the
identification and collation of records associated with specific individuals in different
states.
Students would be able to request VET transcripts from their state/territory service, and the state
government would coordinate with other systems to identify records associated with that student
in other states/territories. Policy makers and researchers would be able to work with state
governments to collate de-identified records to conduct studies for policy making and research.
One submission received in response to the consultation RIS proposed a variant of this option
that could limit costs for state governments. This variant, identified as option 3b hereafter,
would see the development of a national USI service for providers registered nationally or in
states other than Victoria and Queensland, so that they could leverage a national infrastructure.
(4) Data Matching of Existing Records
This option would involve using identifiable information that is held on existing NCVER records
or provided to them through existing transfer systems as a key to matching relevant records. In
this way, some of the data required for analysis of the functioning of the VET system could be
assembled. However, this option would have significant limitations - for example, it would not
be able to recreate transcripts of student records and the reliability of records created by data
matching algorithms would not be sufficient to support entitlement-based training models.
4. Impact Analysis
The impact analysis has been undertaken by examining the options in terms of the costs and
benefits for the key users of VET student record information.
Students
Option Costs Benefits
14
Option Costs Benefits
1. No Change Students are unable to access a No benefits
reliable record of their training
history. Transition of students
between institutions, and
credit transfer and recognition
of prior learning processes
would not be improved. Cost of
obtaining and assembling
transcripts will vary depending
on individual training history,
such as the number of RTOs
attended and range of
qualifications attempted. The
cost of a transcript from an
RTO can be around $20.
Students who attended RTOs
that are no longer operating
may have no means of
obtaining transcripts. There
are 268 RTOs no longer
operating. The inability to
gather authoritative
information about one's own
VET qualifications can
represent a significant cost
over an individual's working
life.
15
Option Costs Benefits
2. National USI Surveys have identified that This option would give students improved
privacy is a concern for some access to their own VET records. The USI will
students. This concern can be make it easier for students to find, collate
managed through robust and authenticate all their vocational
privacy controls in the design of educational attainments in a single portable
the USI. These are set out in record. It is estimated that of the
detail in the section below approximately 2.3 million VET students
headed `Impact on Privacy'. enrolled each year some 30 per cent, or
about 700,000, attend courses with multiple
Students will need to make providers. Therefore, the ability for these
contact with the USI register students to obtain over their working life a
service to obtain their USI, and single consolidated transcript from the USI
for sourcing and providing the agency, as opposed to individual ones from
necessary identifying each provider, would not only constitute a
information (or apply through major convenience, but potentially a saving
an RTO). from not having to pay multiple transcript
fees, where these are charged.
Although no decision in this The benefits generated over their working
regard has been made, minor life by students of RTOs that are no longer
fees might be charged for the operating being able to receive transcripts
provision of academic from the USI agency cannot be readily
transcripts. Costs would be quantified. However, these benefits could
minimal, or for example in the be expected to be significant and arise from
order of $10 to $20 for each improved employment opportunities,
transcript (based on current greater recognition of skills and improved
charges by universities for earning potential and less need for repeat
transcripts). training as a result of Recognition of Prior
Learning (RPL) and credit transfer
arrangements. The national USI will also
enable future services and innovations, such
as e-portfolios and qualification-verification
systems, by enabling an electronic record of
learner attainment, supporting the
transition of students between institutions.
It will provide a training history beyond the
life of the training provider. This will benefit
students in their ongoing training, ensure
they are adequately assessed for prior
learning and facilitate their recruitment into
the workforce by being able to provide a
prospective employer with their complete
training record.
International students undertaking
accredited courses with an Australian
training provider will benefit in the same
way as indicated above under this option.
16
Option Costs Benefits
3. State-based Privacy concerns are not as Benefits to students are limited as this
USIs easily managed as through the option would make it difficult or in some
implementation of option 2, as cases impossible to authenticate student
state and territory privacy records and ensure records are not
legislation covering training duplicated between states.
providers and students varies Further, a respondent to the consultation
widely. RIS suggested that the long term advantages
As above for option 2 in terms of the Victorian Student Number were not
of identity checks and fees for apparent to students.
transcripts.
3b. State- Privacy concerns are not as Benefits to students are limited as this
based variant easily managed as through the option would make it difficult or in some
implementation of option 2. cases impossible to authenticate student
That is, students from Vic and records and ensure records are not
Qld would be more easily duplicated between states.
identifiable. There would be a heightened risk of
students having both a state and national
As above for option 2 in terms identifier or being registered in different
of identity checks and possible jurisdictions with different identifiers.
fees for transcripts.
4. Data Students are unable to access a No benefits.
matching reliable record of their training
history.
Registered Training Organisations
Option Costs Benefits
1. None. None.
17
Option Costs Benefits
2. There are moderate short-term cost implications The introduction of a USI
for implementation of the USI as RTOs will need to would, over time, reduce the
adjust their student management systems to administrative burden for
accommodate the USI. However, costs will be RTOs in a number of ways.
reduced by aligning the timing of the USI with the
timing of the introduction of the new AVETMIS It will streamline data
standard4 on 1 January 2014. collection and reporting
reducing double entry of data
The estimated size of the impact varies based on and by providing an
RTO size, and their use of proprietary or custom- electronic record of learner
built student management systems (SMS). The attainment, and assist with
following guide was developed by 3pillars Asia enrolment details when
Pacific as part of the project business case. students re-enrol.
Estimated cost per RTO of introducing the USI This electronic record could
assist with skills
RTO size % of Low High Comments
all development, training plans,
RTOs* RPL and credit transfer, and
assist in managing student-
Small 55% $1,000 $2,000 Assumes using
`tools' or centred training models.
proprietary SMS
software It would also reduce the
Medium 25% $2,000 $100,000 Assumes using
administrative effort
proprietary SMS associated with data
software or collection and reporting by
custom built providing an electronic
SMS
record of learner attainment,
Large 20% $100,000 Assumes particularly for smaller RTOs
$300,000 custom-built who have low tech
SMS
administrative systems. This
*At December 2011, there were approximately 4,900 RTOs
operating across all states and Territories in Australia. (Source:
would also assist RTOs to
http://training.gov.au/Reports/RtoCount) meet their obligations under
national registration and
Australian Quality Training
Framework (AQTF)
obligations in relation to the
retention, archiving, retrieval
and transfer of records.
4
The Australian Vocational Education and Training Management Information Statistical Standard (AVETMISS)
provides a national framework for the consistent collection and dissemination of vocational education and training
(VET) information throughout Australia. The AVETMIS Standard 7.0 is due to be introduced in January 2014.
18
Option Costs Benefits
2. These costs have not been used to calculate an RTOs will have better access
Continued indicative overall cost to be incurred by RTOs to to student records to make
introduce the USI because they are likely to over- more informed decisions
estimate cost impacts. For example, a large TAFE around assessments of prior
institute in Victoria has estimated the costs of learning and student
implementing the Victorian Student Number at capabilities for undertaking
$65,000, while, in response to a direct question in particular levels of training.
the consultation RIS, a large WA TAFE has Other important benefits
indicated that a USI could be integrated at minimal include more equitable
cost in existing systems. access to VET and
improvement in the quality
Also, these costs assume that RTOs will need to of outcomes for students as
make changes to their software in addition to their they are better aligned to
regular cycle of upgrades. In reality, all RTOs will appropriate courses and
need to make changes to their software systems to learning pathways.
become compliant with AVETMISS 7.0. It is
intended that the introduction of a USI will be a
part of AVETMISS 7.0. Thus, the costs attributable It would also reduce the cost
directly to the USI introduction, as opposed to of transition between
compliance with the new AVETMIS Standard, are institutions by minimising the
likely to be minor. amount of information that
would need to be collected
There are minimal ongoing costs for RTOs, once and stored relating to
implemented, as ongoing administration costs will previous educational
be offset by improvements in data management experience.
efficiency provided by the system.
There might be additional costs to RTOs in terms of
identity checks and liaison with the USI register
service. However, the USI system will to the
extent possible rely on RTOs' existing identity
check procedures to minimise costs and
inconvenience Further, any costs of identity
checks by training providers will be offset when re-
enrolling or transferring students since they will
need only provide their USI.
Advice received as part of the consultations is that
enterprise RTOs, that is Australian employers
delivering VET training to their employees, will not
have concerns about the cost of incorporating a
USI in their existing training record systems.
19
Option Costs Benefits
3. Similar short-term cost implications for most RTOs Same as option 2 for those
as for option 2. records that can be
authenticated.
RTOs operating in multiple states and territories
may face higher costs as differences in state
systems may need to be accommodated
separately. Proprietary software system costs will
also likely increase due to the need to
accommodate differences in state systems.
One national RTO association raised strong
objections to this option in view of the
inefficiencies and inconsistencies of state-based
processes.
Similar costs to option 2 in terms of identity checks
and liaison with the USI register service.
3b Similar short-term cost implications for most RTOs Same as option 2 for those
as for option 2. records that can be
authenticated.
RTOs operating in multiple states and territories RTOs in Vic and Qld will incur
may face higher costs as differences in state lesser costs by not having to
systems may need to be accommodated introduce USI; however these
separately. Proprietary software system costs will RTOs would still be required
also likely increase due to the need to to meet costs associated with
accommodate differences in state systems. AVETMISS 7.0 compliance.
Similar costs to option 2 in terms of identity checks
and liaison with the USI register service.
4. No change; RTOs would not be able to easily No costs to RTO since this
access transcripts of student records for purposes option does not require
of RPL etc. changes at the RTO level.
20
Governments
Option Costs Benefits
1. Lack of data for use in performance None.
measurement and policy development
will necessitate additional research and
data collection through surveys and
other means. The national reform
agenda for VET will increase
requirements for this kind of data
collection and reporting.
Implementation of student entitlement
funding models will not be achievable.
21
Option Costs Benefits
2. Implementation will require an ongoing The USI will enable the implementation of
management agency, to be funded student-centred training programs and the
jointly by Commonwealth and State capture of training activity, irrespective of
governments. where the training occurs. In conjunction
One state government agency with the national qualifications framework,
responding to the consultation RIS a USI will assist in assuring the quality of
commented that the capacity of state VET by providing data on levels of VET
governments to contribute to the activity. Data associated with the USI would
estimated costs has not been also be invaluable for performance
determined. reporting and driving accountability in the
VET sector through demonstrating progress
Capital costs for the project are and achievements of learners and systems.
estimated to be in the order of $13-15
million over two years to be funded Enables longitudinal studies of VET activity
from the national Training System and educational pathways over an
Commonwealth Own Purpose Expenses individual's lifecycle, including the
(NTS COPE) . monitoring of learner pathways and
transitions for disadvantaged learners.
Implementation by the Commonwealth
of a similar system in the higher Analysis of de-identified lifetime VET
education sector, the Higher Education records of enrolment and achievement will
Information Management System, was underpin key areas of the VET reform
costed at $20 million over 4 years agenda.
(2005-2009 budget) for the
Commonwealth. A national USI will lead to better data that
can assist governments to assess and
The USI agency is expected to require identify and act on emerging issues in a
ongoing annual funding of more timely way. This will have a key long
approximately $4-5 million based on term benefit to underpin a more rapid
the ongoing costs of similar systems. response of the VET sector to changes in
the economy thus making it more
While potential costs to regulatory responsive to the needs of the labour
bodies have not been estimated, the market and the economy.
national regulator has indicated in its
response to the consultation RIS that
the USI will assist it in its functions,
although it did not quantify the value of
such assistance.
22
Option Costs Benefits
3. Implementation will require state- Benefits to governments are similar to
based bodies to manage state systems, option 2.
as well as a national framework to
ensure the systems communicate State-based USIs in Victoria and Queensland
effectively. This is the most cost- have the potential to provide accurate
intensive approach for governments, information on a student's movement through
particularly at the state level. the educational system and transition to and
between VET providers, but only within those
jurisdictions.
The costs for the implementation of the
Victorian Student Number were
However, the benefits in respect of VET
estimated at $5.1m; those for the
are significantly reduced by the unreliability
Queensland LUI at $3m in capital costs
of records when sourced from across
plus $1m per year in recurrent costs.
different state systems.
Only Victoria and Queensland have
student identifier schemes. Based on
This approach will make it difficult to
these cost estimates the initial costs for
ensure records are not duplicated between
all the other jurisdictions to implement
states, and may not be reliable enough to
independent state-based unique
underpin student entitlement funding
identifier systems could be around
models.
$25m, plus ongoing costs of around
$6m per year. However, it is worth
noting that the Queensland scheme
currently does not cover all accredited
training and there would be additional
costs incurred in that jurisdiction for
expanding their scheme.
In addition, there would be costs for
the Commonwealth Government to
develop and manage a system that
draws all state based systems together
and undertakes appropriate data
checking and student identification
processes.
23
Option Costs Benefits
3b Same as for option 2, as the Jurisdictions that do not currently have
Commonwealth Government would still their own identifier would be able to
need to develop and manage a system leverage the national USI infrastructure
that draws all state based systems without incurring set up costs such as
together and undertakes appropriate Victoria and Queensland.
data checking and student
identification processes. However, benefits will be significantly
reduced relative to option 2 by the
unreliability of records when sourced from
across different state systems.
This approach will make it difficult to
ensure records are not duplicated between
states, and may not be reliable enough to
underpin student entitlement funding
models.
4. Costs associated with development of Access to limited additional information
data matching facility and algorithms. about student pathways.
Costs associated with running data
matching analysis and data cleansing
Employers
Option Costs Benefits
1. Employers are not easily None
able to obtain consolidated
and authenticated training
histories from their
potential employees.
24
Option Costs Benefits
2. None Employers are able to request from potential employees
an authenticated record of their consolidated and
complete training history. While employers can now ask
their employees to supply this information, it may be
incomplete, not timely or not comprehensive or
authenticated.
Improved data on training supply and demand will assist
with workforce planning for large employers.
As noted in some responses to the Consultation RIS, this
option could help employers adopt a more structured
approach to training and eventually help Australia
develop a stronger training culture. This is because the
introduction of the USI will help employers identify skill
gaps and strengths of their workforce, especially new
recruits, and improve the productive capacity of their
organisation.
3. Employers are not easily Same as option 2, except the value of student records
able to obtain consolidated will be reduced due to their lesser reliability.
and authenticated training
histories from their
potential employees,
where training has been
undertaken in other
jurisdictions.
3b. None. Employers are not Same as option 2, except the value of student records
easily able to obtain will be reduced due to their lesser reliability.
consolidated and
authenticated training
histories from their
potential employees,
where training has been
undertaken in other
jurisdictions.
4. Employers are not easily None. This option is the status quo.
able to obtain consolidated
and authenticated training
histories from their
potential employees.
A summary of costs and benefits of each option follows.
25
Summary of costs and benefits
Option Students RTOs Governments Employers
Cost Benefit Cost Benefit Cost Benefit Cost Benefit
Option No reliable No benefits None. None. Extra research None. None None
1 record of and data
training collection;
history. Cannot
implement
student
entitlement
models.
Option Privacy is a Improved Adjust student Help meet Capital costs Enable None Authenticated
2 concern to access to management data ($13-15m) and student- training record
be own VET systems (cost collection, ongoing annual centred of employees;
managed. records. reduced by reporting and costs ($4-5m) to training; help with
Students Can provide aligning with archiving be funded capture of workforce
will need prospective introduction of obligations; jointly by training data planning; more
to contact employer new assist with Commonwealth will assist in structured
USI service complete AVETMISS) enrolment and State assuring approach to
to get USI training and minor process and governments quality of VET training.
or do so record. ongoing costs. RPL/credit and
via an RTO. Enable Cost varies transfer. performance
Minor fees services like based on RTO reporting and
might be e-portfolios. size. accountability;
charged Potential essential for
for savings from key areas of
academic consolidated VET reform
transcripts. transcripts. agenda.
Option Students RTOs Governments Employers
Cost Benefit Cost Benefit Cost Benefit Cost Benefit
Option As above Limited Higher cost Same as Highest cost of Significantly None Same as option
3 for option benefits than option 2 option 2 for all options reduced by 2, but value of
2. Privacy for RTOs those records (estimated to unreliability of student records
harder to operating in that can be be more than records when reduced as less
assure. multiple authenticated. $25m set up sourced from reliability.
states; costs, plus $6m across
Inefficiencies annual costs). different state
and systems.
inconsistencies Difficult to
of state-based ensure
processes. records are
not
duplicated.
Option As above Limited Same as Same as Same as for Same as None Same as option
3b for options benefits; option 3. option 2 option 2 option 3, but 3.
2 and 3. risk of Lesser costs jurisdictions
students for RTOs in Vic that do not
having both and Qld, but currently have
state and they still face their own
national cost of new identifier
identifier. AVETMISS. could leverage
national USI
infrastructure.
Option Students No benefits. Cannot easily No benefits. Costs of data Access to None. None.
4 unable to access student matching and limited
access a records. data cleansing additional
reliable information
record of about student
27
Option Students RTOs Governments Employers
Cost Benefit Cost Benefit Cost Benefit Cost Benefit
their pathways.
training.
28
Impact on Competition
Under option 1 and 4, differences in state systems would maintain inconsistencies in
RTO costs across jurisdictions.
Under option 2 and 3, the increased costs to student management systems could
represent a minor additional barrier to entry for new RTOs, but this increase is
unlikely to be significant in the context of typical RTO start-up costs. The existence
of proprietary student management systems that small RTOs can purchase also
reduces the potential impacts. Furthermore, it is intended that the changes to RTO
systems to accommodate a USI will be made as part of the 2014 AVETMISS 7.0 data
standard upgrade required by NCVER. This would have the effect of minimising
costs attributable to the USI component.
Under option 3, cost impacts would be higher for those RTOs operating in multiple
states and territories, and may discourage small to medium sized RTOs from
expanding across state lines where they might otherwise do so.
The USI is considered important for facilitating student entitlement funding models
which enhance competition.
Impact on Privacy
Addressing issues of privacy and confidentiality will be a major factor in the
successful design and implementation of a USI for VET. The stakeholder consultation
highlighted the sensitivities relating to privacy for the USI as privacy advocates are
sensitive to the introduction of a USI and they and other stakeholders are looking for
strong privacy protection. Privacy is especially important for the USI because the
system involves the transfer of personal information to and from a central agency,
which could be linked and used for an expanding range of uses.
The following high-level strategies are proposed to be adopted:
Separation of educational and demographic data from personal data in two
separate databases, managed by separate business entities.
Creation of a USI that is a randomly generated 10-character, upper and lower-
case, alpha-numeric string with an additional check digit.
Mandatory minimum level of personal identification checks before a USI is
issued.
Further, a detailed privacy and confidentiality policy for the USI will be implemented.
This is envisaged to include several elements, such as rules for the collection, use and
disclosure of a students USI and the information attached to it; an independent
national agency to administer the system, including exercising control over access to
the central database and specification of the purposes for which the USI can be used;
commitment to nationally consistent privacy regulation and a mechanism for
complaints handling; privacy-enhancing technology, with encryption of the data in the
database when ,,at rest (database encryption) and security implemented to the highest
industry standards. `
29
5. Consultation
The Consultation RIS was open for comment from 23 December 2011 to 20 January
2012, and built on previous extensive public consultations in 2010 and 2011. There
were 24 responses from stakeholders in the 2010 consultations. In the 2011
consultations, 37 stakeholders were interviewed, including peak business and training
bodies and state training authorities, and a total of 850 students responded to a survey.
To inform that consultation process, a discussion paper prepared by NCVER was
made available to all stakeholders (publicly available at
http://www.ncver.edu.au/publications/2412.html ).
The outcome of the consultations conducted for the final business case, as
summarised in the Consultation RIS, is at Attachment A.
A broad range of stakeholders was similarly approached with the Consultation RIS.
Industry, RTOs, state and national agencies were explicitly invited to comment on the
Consultation RIS. A total of 16 responses were received.
In seeking views on the Consultation RIS, the following specific issues were drawn to
the attention of stakeholders:
Whether issues of privacy, which were raised by some stakeholders as a
concern, had been addressed satisfactorily in the development of the options.
Whether costs and benefits had been fully considered across the range of
options considered.
Whether incorporating the required systems changes for introduction of a USI
with the systems changes required by AVETMISS 7.0 is an appropriate
approach to minimise the initial costs to RTOs or whether other mechanisms
to minimise cost could or should be considered.
Summary of views
National agencies expressed generally strong support and preference for a national
USI over other options as it could provide a more accurate picture of VET
participation and outcomes; enhance the efficiency of data collection and usefulness
of the data so collected; and improve the quality and reliability of data to support the
VET reform agenda. A national USI would also align with existing work towards a
national e-portfolio approach as a seamless (technology-based) solution for
recognition of learning wherever acquired. In addition to benefiting students, it could
also provide a more accurate and complete information base for a demand driven
VET system.
National industry bodies were similarly highly supportive of a national USI, which
was seen as assisting in workforce planning, taking a more structured approach to
training and in developing a strong training culture in Australia. By contrast they did
not favour a state-based USI, which was seen as inefficient.
30
State agencies were supportive of an identifier system, but expressed concern about
the potential for a national USI to duplicate or fail to properly accommodate state-
level identifier systems, where they already exist. The capacity of jurisdictions to
contribute towards a national system was also raised as an issue in two instances. One
suggestion was that the USI system should be capable of linking with identifiers at
state-level, where these are issued, and of issuing identifiers to students of nationally
registered providers. This would then enable a phased implementation of a national
USI system. The issue of privacy was the focus of one submission, which noted the
importance of separate agencies storing identifier information and VET enrolment and
achievement, consistent with the proposed model.
Training providers commenting on the Consultation RIS were generally supportive of
a USI system. However, some raised concerns about cost, privacy of individual
information, implementation timeframe and data security. The rationale for extending
the USI to students undertaking accredited VET offshore was questioned. The need
to clearly articulate the long-term benefits to students of a USI was also stressed. All
of these concerns will be carefully addressed in the planning and design of the USI
scheme. For example, the issue of costs will be addressed, in part, by timing the
implementation of the USI with that of the new AVETMIS Standard and by building
on existing RTO arrangements wherever possible. Privacy will be addressed
comprehensively in the manner explained elsewhere in this document, and suitable
information products developed to explain the benefits to students. Further, a
national USI would need to take account of dual VET and Higher Education providers
and ensure appropriate linkages across the two levels. This aspect will be addressed
in detail in the course of consultations with stakeholders that will be taking place in
the development of the IT system and other arrangements.
Not all who commented agreed that the above were significant issues. For example, a
large public RTO, which strongly supported a national USI as the model providing the
greatest benefits, noted that it may be possible to achieve integration of a USI into its
student management system at minimal cost.
Enterprise VET providers noted that a national USI could deliver a more accurate
national VET data base, as much enterprise based VET activity is not currently
reported.
Students surveyed separately in 2011 were generally in favour of the introduction of a
USI, provided privacy and data integrity were addressed and they could maintain
control over their record of achievement. The benefit of a single unique identifier
across a students lifetime was particularly attractive.
Overall, the Consultation RIS elicited responses that were indicative of wide-spread
in-principle support for a national USI (option 2), although some issues of concern
were raised, especially around potential cost implications, privacy of information,
linkages with existing identifier systems and other education sectors, and the need to
articulate clearly the purpose, scope and benefits of the system.
Implications for final business case
The final business case is supported by the outcomes of the consultation process.
31
A national USI approach which would deliver the greatest benefits for VET reform
aligns well with the views of the broad range of stakeholders who could see the
benefits of a USI in progressing such reforms.
In direct response to the concerns about privacy and governance raised by some
stakeholders, the adopted approach in the business case, that is the separate collection
and storage of student identifier and training information, is a key element in ensuring
appropriate protections are put in place to store and maintain individuals records.
Also, legislation is expected to be developed that will delineate limits on the use of
information by stakeholders, thereby addressing concerns about privacy and ,,function
creep. Specifically, the business case for the USI indicates that the legislation will
set out clearly:
what information is to be stored;
who has access to the stored (identity) information;
the use and disclosure of the USI and related information;
who has responsibility for establishing and maintaining the USI register;
who has responsibility for allocating a USI, and to whom, and when
the required identifying information to be collected prior to allocating a USI;
the purposes for which it can be used; and
the criminal penalties for collection, use of disclosure beyond these specified
purposes.
Some stakeholders saw the benefits of a USI, but preferred alternative approaches or
its immediate implementation across all education sectors. In response to the VET
sector concerns about costs, the business case suggests aligning the introduction of a
USI with other proposed systems changes that would impact on key stakeholders - for
example aligning introduction with changes to the data standards required by NCVER
(AVETMISS). In response to concerns about the need for linkages with and
expansion to other education sectors, the business case sets out the establishment from
the outset of a cross-sectoral framework for the unique identifier for the whole
education and training system, with the first phase of implementation in the VET
sector. Further analysis of the impacts of expanding the USI into other sectors will
be needed before a commitment is made to this.
Purpose, scope and operation will be communicated clearly and widely to
stakeholders in a stakeholder engagement strategy planned for the introduction of the
USI.
Further consultations with all the stakeholders will be undertaken to develop
implementation details. These will be facilitated by the Commonwealth/state
working groups that have been established as part of the planning for the USI.
6. Evaluation and Conclusion
A mechanism to enable the creation of a record of all accredited education and
training undertaken and qualifications achieved for each individual who accesses
Vocational Education and Training (VET) over his or her lifetime is an essential
building block for the future of the VET reform agenda. The alternatives to the
32
national approach canvassed in this document on balance indicate that they have
either fewer benefits or greater costs than a national USI system.
Of the options considered in the context of this RIS, the option to do nothing will not
provide the necessary data to fill current information gaps and support the VET
reform agenda. This could be expected to continue to have negative impacts on the
efficiency of the VET system and its ability to respond to skills requirements, and
therefore ultimately undermine Australias productive capacity.
The option to introduce student identification systems state by state could provide
some of the data required, but at a greater cost to both RTOs and governments than a
national system. Its fragmentation and lack of coherence would inevitably cause
uncertainty about the reliability of separately built systems and their capacity to
provide accurate linked data consistent with requirements. Moreover, it would be of
limited benefit to students undertaking training over their working life in different
jurisdictions and would require a significant level of cross-jurisdictional data
matching to generate consolidated training records whose reliability could not be
guaranteed. Similarly, option 3b would have limited benefit and would end up
requiring Commonwealth funding to develop and manage a system that draws all state
based systems together and undertakes appropriate data checking and student
identification processes.
By contrast, the proposal to establish a national unique student identifier, option 2,
responds to the data problem identified in the VET sector. The proposed approach
would allow for the safe generation and storage of unique student numbers in VET
and for these numbers to be attached to enrolment and achievement records for each
student participating in training provided by registered training organisations. There
will be costs to RTOs (in software changes and handling of identity checks) and
governments (to establish and maintain a USI register service).
However, these costs would be offset by the benefits that would accrue directly to
students and RTOs by simplifying processes and to governments in their being able to
better understand the needs of those engaged with the VET sector and being able to
measure the effectiveness of their investment. The costs will also be reduced by
relying on existing processes where possible and by timing the introduction of the
USI with the new AVETMIS standard. Further, the benefits would include significant
cumulative savings from the ability of the USI agency to generate consolidated
transcripts of VET attainments of students over their working life.
Importantly, a national USI will lead to better data that can assist the identification of
emerging VET sector issues and trends, such as gaps in the training in particular skills
that may be on demand, in a more timely way for RTOs, employers and
governments. This will have a key long term benefit to underpin a more rapid
response of the VET sector to changes in the economy thus making it more responsive
to the needs of the labour market and the economy and make the workforce more
readily adaptable to the changing skills needs of the future, thus enhancing
opportunities for productivity improvements. As such option 2 is the one that delivers
the highest net benefit of the options canvassed.
33
7. Implementation and Review
The implementation of the national USI is planned to coincide with the introduction
of the new VET data standard for data generated by RTOs. This standard is updated
from time to time by the National Centre for Vocational Education Research - and the
new standard, AVETMISS 7.0, is due for implementation on 1 January 2014. This is
also the proposed implementation date for the USI as it would allow data
requirements for the USI to be included in AVETMISS 7.0, thereby minimising costs
for software changes required by RTOs.
An implementation date of 1 January 2014 would also allow for the planning and
development of the USI solution to be undertaken in a considered way - and will
allow appropriate consultation with stakeholders in the development of business
requirements for the IT system and other arrangements. The business case
recommended that the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace
Relations (DEEWR)5 take the lead for the implementation of the USI. A taskforce
has been set up in DEEWR for this purpose and planning is underway pending
COAG's decision. Commonwealth/state working groups have been established to
develop detailed proposals around the governance and legislation, IT, data and
communications aspects of the project. An engagement strategy is being developed to
ensure that all stakeholders are included in the planning and implementation phase of
the project - should COAG decide to proceed - and are kept informed about progress.
A review of the operations of the USI initiative will be provided to COAG or its
nominated committee following its introduction.
The introduction of the USI will support the broader VET reform currently being
considered. The USI proposal is a key component of the $1.4b National Agreement
for Skills and Workforce Development being renegotiated with the States and the
National Partnership to reform the Vocational Education and Training System, due to
commence on 1 July 2012. The USI will add greater transparency to the VET sector
and help provide the reassurance to Government that funds are being properly
targeted to skills needs. In addition, the USI will improve transparency by enabling
students and training providers to access comprehensive and authenticated
information about VET attainments from a single source, and once fully implemented,
potentially improving efficiency by reducing the administrative burden on training
providers associated with data collection and reporting.
The revised NASWD and reform NP is to be considered by First Ministers in early
2012.
5
Following Machinery of Government changes, the Department of Industry, Innovation, Science,
Research and Tertiary Education (DIISRTE) will take the lead.
34
Attachment A
Excerpt from the Consultation Regulatory Impact Statement on Consultations in
2011.
Following the endorsement of the preparatory business case by COAG in February
2011, a consultation process regarding the introduction of a USI was carried out
during June 2011. This process was designed to canvass the views of a wide cross
section of relevant stakeholders regarding the purpose and use of a USI across the
VET system to assist in the preparation of the final business case. Views on the
implementation of a USI were also canvassed during the process.
Stakeholders included in the process were VET students, peak bodies such as state
training authorities and policy makers such as state government and Commonwealth
Government officials, and a range of RTOs both large and small and public and
private.
To inform the consultation process, a discussion paper prepared by NCVER was
made available to all stakeholders. This is publicly available at
http://www.ncver.edu.au/publications/2412.html
In undertaking these consultations, a range of views about the possible options and
uses of a USI was canvassed. Specifically, the consultations sought and collected
views on the introduction of a USI from stakeholders focussing on the following
broad issues:
What is a USI and why is it needed?
What are the benefits to all stakeholders?
What are the risks and challenges for implementation?
How can these be overcome?
The consultation process used a range of approaches including: face-to-face and
telephone interviews with Commonwealth, State and Territory VET regulatory bodies
and discussions with RTOs. A customised online survey was developed to engage
and collect information from students.
Responses from the consultation process are available at:
http://www.ncver.edu.au/publications/2413.html
Key messages arising from the consultations are outlined as follows:
The USI will support ongoing reforms to the VET sector - the majority of
stakeholders saw that the USI would be a very useful tool in supporting reforms in the
VET sector, including a more evidenced-based approach to policy and planning and
the ability to create new student-centric innovations. Also, stakeholders could see the
benefits of the introduction of a USI to improve operations within the VET sector.
The USI is seen as important but not widely seen as essential - providing
longitudinal data and enabling other initiatives whilst, at the same time, potentially
reducing administrative burden were seen as important for the future of the sector.
35
Those who thought the USI was not essential suggested there could be other ways to
improve data and that there are other initiatives that are potentially more important.
Concerns that surfaced during the consultation process include:
Purpose and Scope - few stakeholders had a clear understanding of the purpose and
scope of the USI. Others doubted the ability of the government to deliver and
implement the project.
Privacy concerns - the protection of an individuals privacy was of moderate
concern to some and critical concern to a few stakeholder groups.
Governance - effective and transparent governance was considered crucial to the
creation and maintenance of high quality, secure data.
Cost of compliance - for many RTOs the cost of the system is a strong concern and
they are nervous about further additional costs.
Students, RTOs and ownership of data - there is a tension between students
desiring ownership of training information and the ability to select the information
able to be viewed by others and, on the other hand, a requirement for RTOs to submit
complete records.
Overall findings
Overall, there is strong support for the concept of a USI among VET students, peak
bodies and policy-makers, with Registered Training Organisation (RTOs) and
regulators expressing a range of views. It is also apparent that stakeholders are
looking for more detail and a clearer statement of the USIs purpose and scope.
Implications for final business case
The final business case is supported by the outcomes of the consultation process.
A national USI approach which would deliver the greatest benefits for VET reform
aligns well with the views of the broad range of stakeholders who could see the
benefits of a USI in progressing such reforms.
In direct response to the concerns about privacy and governance raised by some
stakeholders, the adopted approach in the business case ensures appropriate
protections would be put in place to store and maintain individuals records. Also,
protocols around the use of information by stakeholders would be developed.
Some stakeholders saw the benefits of a USI but preferred alternative approaches.
To address concerns about costs from stakeholders, the business case suggests
aligning the introduction of a USI with other proposed systems changes that would
impact on key stakeholders - for example aligning introduction with changes to the
data standards required by NCVER (AVETMISS).
36
The project clearly has an opportunity to clarify the purpose, refine its scope and
communicate this widely through its stakeholders in a communication strategy
planned for the introduction of the USI.
37
STUDENT IDENTIFIERS BILL 2013
NOTES ON CLAUSES
Part 1
Preliminary
Outline of Part
Part 1 of the Bill provides for the preliminary provisions of the Bill which includes
clauses on the citation of the Bill, the commencement, an outline, definitions, the
application of the Bill to the Crown and the extension to the external territories and
extraterritorial application.
Detailed explanation
Part 1-- Preliminary
Clause 1 provides that the Bill, when it is enacted, is to be cited as the Student
Identifiers Act 2013.
Clause 2 inserts a three column table setting out commencement information for
various provisions of the Bill. Each provision of the Bill specified in column 1 of the
table commences (or is taken to have commenced) in accordance with column 2 of the
table and any other statement in column 2 has effect according to its terms.
The table has the effect of providing for clauses 1 and 2 and any other provisions of
the Bill not otherwise covered by the table are to commence on Royal Assent.
The table also provides that clauses 3 to 57 commence on a day, or days, to be
proclaimed, or if any of the provisions do not commence within 6 months from Royal
Assent, they commence on the day after that 6 month period expires.
Subclause 2(2) provides that information in column 3 of the table does not form part
of the Bill. Information in column 3 may be inserted or varied in any published
version of the Bill (once enacted).
Clause 3 provides a simplified outline of the operation of the Bill.
Clause 4 defines terms that appear in the Bill. These definitions include the
following:
Agency means the Student Identifiers Agency.
38
CEO means the Chief Executive Officer of the Agency.
Commonwealth Minister means the Minister administering this Bill once it is
enacted. The Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Science and Research is the
administering minister at the time when the Bill is enacted.
entity means a person, partnership, any other unincorporated association or body or a
trust. This definition is intended to operate broadly.
personal information has the same meaning as in the Privacy Act. This has been
defined in such a way as to ensure that any amendments to the definition of personal
information in the Privacy Act will automatically apply to the Bill.
RTO means registered training organisation.
Standing Council means the Council of Australian Government Standing Council on
Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment (if there is such a body) or otherwise a
body prescribed by the regulations.
As the Standing Councils name and composition is subject to change, it is necessary
to allow such a body to be prescribed in the regulations to ensure that there is
sufficient flexibility to accommodate these changes.
VET means vocational education and training.
Subclause 4(2) provides that the CEO may specify an entity for the purposes of the
definition of VET admission body through a legislative instrument. It is envisaged an
instrument made under this subclause would include entities which do not provide
VET but facilitate the enrolment of students into VET courses.
Subclause 4(3) provides that the CEO may specify an entity for the purposes of the
definition of VET-related body through a legislative instrument.
This provision is intended to operate so all bodies that are intended to be considered a
VET-related body can be captured by a legislative instrument if they do not fall within
subsection (a), (b) (c) of the definition of VET-related body. Subsection (d) of this
definition enables the CEO to specify an entity for the purposes of the definition of
VET-related body.
Please note that subsection 13(3) of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 (the
Legislative Instruments Act) will allow the CEO to specify a class or multiple classes
of entities when specifying VET-related bodies rather than a specific VET-related
body.
Clause 5 provides that the Commonwealth is bound by the provisions of the Bill in
each of its capacities. The effect of this clause is to bind the Crown in right of the
Commonwealth, of each of the States, of the Australian Capital Territory and of the
Northern Territory in respect of the Bill.
Clause 6 provides that the Bill will apply in every external Territory of Australia.
39
Clause 7 provides that this Bill will extend to acts, omissions, matters or things
outside of Australia.
40
Part 2
Student identifiers
Outline of Part
Part 2 of the Bill sets out the ways in which a student identifier may be assigned or
verified, the protection of records containing student identifiers, the use, collection
and disclosure of student identifiers and the interaction of the Bill with the Privacy
Act.
Detailed explanation
Part 2-- Student identifiers
Division 1 - Assignment of student identifiers etc.
Clause 8 provides that an individual may apply to the CEO of the Agency, which is
established in Part 4 of the Bill, for a student identifier to be assigned to the
individual.
A registered training organisation, a VET admission body or another entity may also
apply to the CEO for a student identifier to be assigned to an individual if the
individual authorises such an entity to make an application to the CEO.
The purpose of allowing another entity to apply on the behalf of an individual is to
ensure that the individual is not limited in who, or what kind of entity, may apply on
their behalf.
The application must be made in a manner and form approved by the CEO and must
include any information required by the CEO. The IT system being built to underpin
the scheme will reflect the approved manner and form of the application. The
application will require the individual to provide the following kinds of information:
first name, last name, date of birth, gender, address, city and country of birth, country
in which the student is studying and evidence of identity. Applications will be made
on-line, by individuals or their authorised entity providing personal information
sufficient to verify the identity of the individual.
An individual will then be able to nominate how they would like to receive their
student identifier, such as via a text message to their mobile phone, an email address
or the post. Once a student has received their identifier, they log on to the on-line
system, enter their name and the password that they have chosen and they are then
41
able to generate an authenticated transcript of their VET achievements linked to the
student identifier.
For the avoidance of doubt, the authorisation of the CEO to collect personal
information under the Bill does not displace any provisions of the Privacy Act or an
equivalent Act of a State or Territory. This will mean that that CEO and Agency staff
are subject to the current Information Privacy Principles (and will be subject to the
Australian Privacy Principles when the Privacy Amendment (Enhancing Privacy
Protection) Act 2012 (the Privacy Amendment (Enhancing Privacy Protection) Act)
commences) in regard to the collection and holding of an individual's personal
information for the purposes of processing an application for a student identifier by
that individual.
An application for a student identifier will not involve the Agency charging any fee.
Any individual providing false or misleading information when applying for a student
identifier may be liable for criminal penalties under section 137 of the Criminal
Code Act 1995.
Clause 9 provides that if an application is made to the CEO in accordance with clause
8, the CEO must assign a student identifier to the individual if the CEO is satisfied
that the identity of the individual has been appropriately verified and the individual
has not already been assigned a student identifier.
Please note that once assigned, an individual will have the same student identifier for
all time. Only in exceptional circumstances will an individual be assigned a new
student identifier. An example of such an exceptional circumstance is when a
problem has been identified with the first issued student identifier and its cancellation
is required to solve the problem (please see the explanation of Clause 11).
For the avoidance of doubt, the authorisation of the collection, use and disclosure of a
student identifier made under the Bill does not displace any provisions of the Privacy
Act or an equivalent Act of a state or territory. This will mean that to the extent a
student identifier is contained in personal information about an individual that an
entity collects, uses or discloses then the entity will still be bound by any provisions in
the Privacy Act or an equivalent Act of a state or territory which would ordinarily
apply to that entity. Please also note that the CEO and staff of the Agency are subject
to the current Information Privacy Principles (and will be subject to the Australian
Privacy Principles when the Privacy Amendment (Enhancing Privacy Protection) Act
commences) in regard to the authorisation of the collection, use and disclosure of a
student identifier for the purpose of assigning a student identifier to that individual.
The CEO must give written notice of the decision regarding the application to the
applicant as well as the individual (in the event that the individual to whom the
identifier is assigned is not the applicant).
If the CEO does assign a student identifier to an individual, the notice of this decision
must set out the student identifier. In addition, if the student identifier is given to an
individual, it must also explain the purposes and uses of the student identifier. The
explanation of the purpose and use of the student identifier will include:
42
· the legislative basis for the collection of the identifier, and other personal
information;
· whether other information about the individual will be collected from other
sources;
· what the information will be used for;
· the consequences for the individual, if the information is not collected;
· who the information may be disclosed to; and
· how the individual may access their information.
If the CEO refuses to assign a student identifier to an individual, the notice of this
decision must set out the reasons for the refusal.
Clause 10 provides that if an RTO, a VET admission body or another entity is
authorised by an individual to apply on their behalf to the CEO for a student identifier
and the entity collects personal information solely for the purpose of making the
application, the entity must destroy that personal information as soon as practicable
after the application is made or it is no longer required for that purpose.
This clause also provides that the requirement to destroy the personal information
does not apply if the entity is required by or under any law to retain the information or
if the information is also collected for another reason.
The effect of this provision is to ensure the protection of the individuals personal
information collected only for the purpose of obtaining a student identifier.
A contravention of this clause is taken to be an interference with the privacy of an
individual for the purposes of the Privacy Act. Please see clause 22 for a further
explanation of the effect of a contravention of this clause.
Clause 11 provides that if a problem has occurred in relation to an assignment of one
or more student identifiers to one or more individuals, the CEO may either revoke one
or more of the student identifiers and/or assign a new student identifier to one or more
of those individuals.
This provision operates so the CEO must give the written notice to each of the entities
mentioned within the provision if the CEO revokes a student identifier or assigns a
new student identifier.
The entities that are required to be notified are the individual, a VET-related body (if
the VET-related body is a Department of the Commonwealth (other than the Agency)
or a Department of a State or Territory, that deals with matters relating to VET
(including the funding of VET)) as well as any other entity that the CEO consider
appropriate in the circumstances.
By storing these records separately, it will not be possible to identify an individual by
their student identifier alone and will therefore mean that there is greater protection of
the individuals privacy.
43
The provision will operate so that the individual will receive the notice via the mode
of communication they have advised the CEO is their preferred mode of
communication.
A VET-related body or other entity mentioned in this provision will receive the
notification via an electronic exchange of information or by such other method as
agreed with the CEO.
Clause 11 also provides that the notice must set out the revoked identifier, in the event
the student identifier of an individual has been revoked, and the new identifier, in the
event a new identifier is assigned to an individual.
Clause 12 provides that applications may be made to the Administrative Appeals
Tribunal (AAT) by an individual for a review of a decision to refuse assignment of an
identifier to an individual or a decision to revoke a student identifier of the individual
or to assign a new identifier to an individual.
Division 2 - Verification or giving of student identifiers
Clause 13 provides that an individual, an RTO, a VET-related body, or a VET
admission body (if the VET admission body is authorised by the individual to do so),
can request the CEO to verify that a student identifier is the student identifier of a
particular individual. These entities can also request the CEO give the entity the
student identifier of an individual.
This clause also provides that a request must be made in the manner and form
approved by the CEO and must include any information required by the CEO. For the
purposes of verification this includes first name, last name, date of birth and the
student identifier. For the purposes of giving student identifiers to an entity this will
include all of the information required for the purpose of making an application.
Please see clause 8 for a further explanation of the information required.
The purpose of this clause is to allow the above mentioned organisations to cross-
check with the CEO an identifier in order to verify that the identifier is properly
assigned to the right individual.
Please note that a request to verify or give a student identifier will not involve the
Agency charging any fee.
Clause 14 provides that if an individual, an RTO, a VET-related body, or a VET
admission body makes a request under clause 13 to the CEO to verify or give the
student identifier of an individual to the requesting entity, the CEO may by written
notice, verify or give the student identifier of the individual. The effect of this clause
is to allow the CEO to properly respond to the above mentioned organisations.
This clause also provides that if the CEO refuses to verify or give the student
identifier, the CEO must give the entity that made the request a written notice of the
refusal and the reasons for the refusal.
Division 3 - Protection of records of student identifiers
44
Clause 15 provides that the CEO must take reasonable steps to protect a record of
student identifiers kept by the CEO from misuse, interference, loss, unauthorised
access, modification and disclosure.
This clause also provides that if any other entity keeps a record of student identifiers,
the entity must take reasonable steps to protect the record from misuse, interference,
loss, unauthorised access, modification and disclosure.
This clause further provides that an individual who keeps a record of their own
student identifier is not required to take reasonable steps to protect the record from
misuse, interference, loss, unauthorised access, modification and disclosure.
The purpose of this clause is to ensure that all entities, including the CEO, are obliged
to protect a record of student identifiers. Please note that a contravention of this clause
is taken to be an interference with the privacy of an individual for the purposes of the
Privacy Act. Please see clause 22 for a further explanation of the effect of a
contravention of this clause.
The CEO and staff of the Agency are subject to the current Information Privacy
Principles (and will be subject to the Australian Privacy Principles when the Privacy
Amendment (Enhancing Privacy Protection) Act commences) in relation to the
security of personal information held by the Agency. The CEO and staff are also
subject to the Crimes Act 1914 in relation to the unauthorised disclosure of
information by a Commonwealth Officer. A breach of this Act may incur a penalty of
imprisonment for two years.
Division 4 - Collection, use or disclosure of student identifiers
Clause 16 provides that an entity must not collect, use or disclose a student identifier
of an individual if the entity is not the individual who has been assigned the student
identifier and the collection, use or disclosure of the student identifier is not
authorised under Division 4 of Part 2 of the Bill.
The effect of this clause is to ensure the student identifier, and by extension the
privacy of the individual who has been assigned the student identifier, is protected.
This clause achieves this by ensuring that the collection, use or disclosure can only
occur on the grounds of the limited number of authorisations contained in clauses 17
to 21 of the Bill. In any other case, the collection, use or disclosure of an identifier is a
breach of this clause.
Please note that a contravention of this clause is taken to be interference with the
privacy of an individual for the purposes of the Privacy Act. Please see clause 22 for a
further explanation of the effect of a contravention of this clause.
Clause 17 provides that the CEO is authorised to collect, use or disclose a students
identifier if it is for the purposes of the CEO performing his or her functions or
exercising his or her powers. The functions of the CEO are listed in clause 33 (which
is explained below).
45
This clause also provides that the CEO is authorised to use or disclose a student
identifier of an individual if the use or disclosure is for the purposes of research that
related either directly or indirectly to education or training, or that required the use of
student identifiers or information about education and training. The use or disclosure
for the purpose of research must also meet the requirements specified by the Standing
Council. The strict protocols governing research will be developed in conjunction
with all states and territories through the Standing Council, to ensure that the integrity
of the scheme is maintained. It is anticipated that researchers will be provided with
data once they have demonstrated that they can meet these strict protocols.
Clause 18 provides that an entity is authorised to collect, use or disclose the student
identifier of an individual if the individual consents, either expressly or implicitly, to
the collection, use or disclosure.
It is a design principle of the student identifier scheme that the student identifier will
be controlled by the individual to which it was assigned. Specifically, an individual's
consent is required:
in the preparation of an authenticated VET transcript;
for an RTO or VET admission body to apply for a student identifier on the
individuals behalf;
for an RTO to access that individual's authenticated VET transcript;
for a VET-related body to access that individual's authenticated VET
transcript when that individual enquires about or applies for a government
funded training place; and
for a VET-related body to access that individual's authenticated VET
transcript when that individual seeks advice about their academic future.
This clause also provides that an individual cannot consent to the entity using the
individuals identifier as the entitys own identifier of the individual. This clause
operates broadly to ensure that the entity cannot use the student identifier as the
entitys student number for the individual and that the entity cannot use it for other
identification purposes, such as printing it on a student card issued by the entity for
the individual, for example.
Clause 19 provides that an entity is authorised to collect, use or disclose a student
identifier of an individual if the entity has reason to suspect that unlawful activity, or
misconduct of a serious nature, that relates to the entitys functions or activities has
been engaged in, or is being, or may be engaged in provided that the entity reasonably
believes that the collection, use or disclosure is necessary in order for the entity to
take appropriate action in relation to the matter.
This clause operates broadly to ensure that an entity is authorised to collect, use or
disclose a student identifier in the event that there is a suspicion of unlawful activity,
or misconduct of a serious nature. This clause, by specifying that the unlawful activity
or serious misconduct must relate to an entitys functions or activities, intends that the
exception will apply to an entitys internal investigations. Examples of ,,appropriate
action in this context may include collection, use or disclosure of a student identifier
for an internal investigation in relation to internal fraud or breach of an entitys code
46
of conduct, noting that disclosure for law enforcement purposes is provided in
clause 20.
This clause is consistent with the approach to the collection, use and disclosure of
personal information that will appear in Item 2 of the table in section 16A of the
Privacy Act once the amendments inserted by Item 82 of the Privacy Amendment
(Enhancing Privacy Protection) Act take effect.
Clause 20 authorises an entity to collect, use or disclose a student identifier of an
individual if the entity reasonably believes that the collection, use or disclosure is
reasonably necessary for one of a list of things to be done by, or on behalf of, an
enforcement body. These things are: for the prevention, detection, investigation,
prosecution or punishment of criminal offences or breaches of a law imposing a
penalty or sanction; the conduct of surveillance, intelligence gathering, or monitoring
activities; the conduct of protective or custodial activities; the enforcement of laws
relating to the confiscation of the proceeds of crime; the protection of the public
revenue; the prevention, detection, investigation or remedying of misconduct of a
serious nature, or other conduct prescribed by the regulations; and the preparation for,
or conduct of, proceedings before any court or tribunal, or the implementation of the
order of a court or tribunal.
These types of activities have been included to accurately reflect the range of
activities that law enforcement agencies currently undertake in performing their
legitimate and lawful functions.
The clause recognises that the limited use and disclosure of student identifiers for
criminal law enforcement purposes is in the public interest when balanced with the
interest in protecting an individuals privacy.
Clause 21 provides that an entity is authorised to collect, use or disclose a student
identifier of an individual if the collection, use or disclosure is authorised by the
regulations.
It is envisaged that the regulations made under clause 21 of the Bill may authorise
RTOs to collect and use student identifiers for the purposes of meeting its reporting
obligations under the Australian Quality Training Framework Essential Conditions
and Standards for Initial Registration and the Australian Quality Training Framework
Essential Conditions and Standards for Continuing Registration. These documents are
approved by the Standing Council and are amended from time to time. It is therefore
necessary for the regulations to refer to these documents as they exist from time to time in
order to ensure that RTOs collect and use the student identifier to meet their up to date
reporting obligations.
The regulations will be a disallowable instrument, necessitating the scrutiny of the
Commonwealth Parliament in relation to their creation and amendment. The creation
and amendment of these regulations will also require the agreement of the states and
territories through the Standing Council.
It is envisaged that the regulations will provide authorisations for the collection, use
and disclosure to a limited number of entities in specific circumstances. These entities
47
are likely to include former and current registered training organisations (as defined
by the NVETR Act), schools whose students undertake a VET course as part of their
education, the National Centre for Vocational Education Research, VET-related
bodies and VET Admission Bodies.
The national training system is managed by the Commonwealth and State and
Territory governments to be responsive to the skills needs of industries and the
economy. To ensure the requisite responsiveness is maintained, all other permitted
uses of the student identifier will be established under regulations.
Initially, it is anticipated that the regulations will provide for the collection, use and
disclosure of a students identifier in certain specific circumstances relating to:
registered training organisations (RTOs) and VET-related bodies meeting their
reporting obligations under the VET standards and RTOs meeting their
contractual obligations with VET-related bodies;
establishing an individuals eligibility to a training subsidy;
delivering and reporting on VET courses;
the verification of a student identifier;
assisting the CEO to resolve problems in the assignment of a student identifier
(as outlined in clause 11 of the Bill);
the preparation and auditing of the National VET Statistics;
conducting education-related policy development and research;
the preparation of an authenticated VET transcript;
auditing publicly registered training organisations and publically funded VET
or programs;
VET Regulators performing their functions under their legislation;
the prevention, detection, investigation or remedying of obtaining student
identifiers fraudulently or issuing student identifiers as a result of misconduct;
and
disclosure otherwise required by law (such as when a subpoena is issued for
such information).
Please note that the Bill does not replace the protections provided to personal
information under the Privacy Act (or the equivalent legislation within the State and
Territory jurisdictions). Therefore any entity that collects, uses or discloses a student
identifier will have to comply with the protections of this information under the Bill
as well as the Privacy Act or the equivalent legislation within the State and Territory
jurisdictions (to the extent that an identifier contains personal information).
Division 5 - Interaction with the Privacy Act 1988
Clause 22 provides that an act or a practice that contravenes clause 10 in relation to
personal information or clause 15 or 16 in relation to a student identifier is taken to be
an interference with the privacy of the individual concerned, within the meaning, and
for the purpose of, the Privacy Act. Clause 22 deems the contravention to be an
interference of privacy for the entirety of the Privacy Act, including the current
sections 13 and 13A of the Privacy Act.
48
Please note that interference with the privacy of the individual may be the subject of
an investigation by the Australian Information Commissioner under Part V of the
Privacy Act.
This clause also provides that if an act or practice of an entity that contravenes section
10, 15 or 16 is subject to an investigation by the Australian Information
Commissioner, the entity is then taken to be an organisation within the meaning of the
Privacy Act. This is to ensure that any entity that contravenes sections 10, 15 or 16
will be captured within the definition of organisation in the Privacy Act and the
necessary provisions that apply to organisations within that Act will apply to the
entities that contravene clauses 10, 15 and 16.
Clause 23 provides that in addition to his or her functions under the Privacy Act, the
Australian Information Commissioner has certain additional functions. The first
additional function is that the Australian Information Commissioner may investigate
an act or practice that may be an interference with the privacy of an individual under
clause 22(1) and, if the Australian Information Commissioner considers it appropriate,
attempt to effect a settlement of the matters that give rise to the investigation by
conciliation. The second additional function is that the Australian Information
Commissioner may conduct an assessment of whether the CEO is maintaining or
handling student identifiers in accordance with the Bill. The final function is that the
Information Commissioner can do anything incidental or conducive to the
performance of the first two additional functions.
This clause also provides that the Australian Information Commissioner has the
power to do all things that are necessary or convenient to be done for, or in
connection with, his or her additional functions under this clause.
The Australian Information Commissioner may also conduct an assessment of
whether the CEO is maintaining or handling student identifiers in accordance with the
requirements of this Bill in such a manner as the Australian Information
Commissioner considers fit. This clause operates broadly to allow the Australian
Information Commissioner the necessary flexibility required to conduct an
assessment.
This clause further provides that clause 56 of the Bill (rather than section 12B of the
Privacy Act) applies to investigations or assessments made under this clause in the
same way it applies to this Bill.
Both clause 12B of the Privacy Act and clause 56 of the Bill, which is discussed
below, outline the various heads of power that the Commonwealth may rely on under
section 51 of the Constitution in order to validly enact the respective piece of
legislation. As the Bill will rely on different heads of power to be validly enacted than
the Privacy Act, it is necessary for clause 56 to apply to clause 23.
Clause 24 provides that the use or disclosure by an entity of personal information
about an individual is taken, for the purposes of the Privacy Act, to be authorised by
the Bill, if the use or disclosure is for the purpose of the CEO performing his or her
functions or exercising his or her powers. This provision is necessary to allow the
CEO to carry out his or her functions and powers under the Bill. The CEO is still
49
bound by the requirements of the Privacy Act in handling any personal information
that is disclosed to him or her by an entity.
This clause also provides that the use or disclosure by the CEO of personal
information about an individual is taken, for the purposes of the Privacy Act, to be
authorised by the Bill if the use or disclosure is for the purposes of research that
relates to education or training that requires the use of student identifiers or
information about education or training. The use or disclosure for the purpose of such
research must also meet the requirements which will be specified by the Standing
Council as provided for under clause 17(2) of the Bill. It is envisaged that the
Standing Council will enact a data protocol that would establish a committee for
considering such requests and the principles against which such a request should be
considered. The requirements set by the Standing Council will operate as a further
safeguard to the personal information of an individual.
50
Part 3
Authenticated VET transcripts
Outline of Part
Part 3 of the Bill sets out how individuals can access their authenticated VET
transcript and how they may authorise RTOs and VET-related bodies to also gain
access to the transcript or an extract of the transcript.
Detailed explanation
Part 3-- Authenticated VET transcripts
Clause 25 provides that, on request, the CEO may give an individual who has been
assigned a student identifier access to their authenticated VET transcript or an extract
from the authenticated transcript.
An authenticated VET transcript of an individual means a document prepared by the
CEO that relates to the VET undertaken by an individual that contains information
prescribed by the regulations. It is envisaged that an authenticated VET transcript will
contain the following information:
the name of the individual;
the date the transcript was issued;
the name of each unit of competency or module of a VET course commenced
or completed by the individual after 1 January 2014 unless an exemption
under clause 53 of the Bill applies;
the date the unit or module was commenced;
the date the unit or module was completed;
the name the registered training organisation that delivered the unit or module;
the funding source for the unit or module;
the outcome for each unit or module;
the name of each VET qualification completed; and
the issuer of each VET qualification.
This information will be prescribed by the regulations as the kinds of information that
will be contained in an authenticated VET transcript which will change from time to
time. It is therefore necessary that this information is prescribed by the regulations to
ensure that there is sufficient flexibility to accommodate future changes.
The request for either the authenticated VET transcript or an extract must be made in
a manner and form approved by the CEO and must include any information required
by the CEO. If the request is for an extract, the request must specify the information
to be excluded from the extract.
51
The decision of the CEO to give access to either an authenticated VET transcript or an
extract is discretionary and this clause further provides that if the CEO refuses access
to a transcript, the CEO must give the individual written notice of the decision and the
reasons for making such a decision. An example of when a request for a transcript
could be refused is when the CEO is resolving a problem with that particular student
identifier, such as resolving duplicate student identifiers.
Please note a request by an individual for an authenticated VET transcript will not
involve the Agency charging any fee.
Clause 26 provides that, on request, the CEO may give an RTO or a VET-related
body access to an authenticated VET transcript (or an extract) of an individual who
has been assigned a student identifier in accordance with the access controls set by the
individual.
This clause operates to provide access where an individual has authorised a particular
RTO or a VET-related body access to an authenticated VET transcript. The request
for either the authenticated VET transcript or an extract must be made in a manner
and form approved by the CEO and must include any information required by the
CEO. If the request is for an extract, the request must specify the information to be
excluded from the extract.
At the time of being assigned a student identifier, each individual will be given access
to an on-line account with the Agency, which can be used to request transcripts and
update personal information. By using the access controls associated with their
account, an individual has control over which RTOs or VET-related bodies can be
given access to an authenticated VET transcript.
This clause also provides that the CEO must not give an RTO or a VET-related body
access to an authenticated VET transcript or extract unless the controls have been set
by the individual. This means that the default access control is to prohibit all RTOs
and VET-related bodies from being given access to an authenticated VET transcript
(or an extract). This means that the individual will have to positively approve any
access to an RTO or a VET-related body.
The decision of the CEO to give access to either an authenticated VET transcript or an
extract is discretionary and this clause further provides that if the CEO refuses access
to a transcript, the CEO must give the RTO or VET-related body written notice of the
decision and the reasons for making such a decision.
Please note a request by an RTO or VET-related body for an authenticated VET
transcript will not involve the Agency charging any fee.
Clause 27 provides that if the CEO does give access to an extract to an individual, an
RTO or a VET-related body, the extract must include a statement that it is an extract.
This requirement is to ensure that those entities that do receive access to an extract are
aware that not all the information that would otherwise be contained in an
authenticated VET transcript has been provided.
52
The requirement to include a statement that a document is an extract does not apply if
the information not in the extract is information that is prescribed by the regulations
or if the CEO considers that it is not appropriate for the extract to state that it is an
extract.
The purpose of this exemption is to ensure that if an authenticated VET transcript
would otherwise contain sensitive information, this information could be omitted
from the document without the document containing a statement that it is an extract of
an authenticated VET transcript. The kinds of information that could be omitted from
the document without the document containing a statement that it is an extract would
include information that is otherwise required to be suppressed by law, or any other
information that may not be appropriate to be contained within an authenticated VET
transcript. This provision allows the CEO to use his or her discretion as to what would
be considered information that is not appropriate to be included in an authenticated
VET transcript. The power to prescribe a kind of information in the regulations
provides flexibility to prescribe a category of information which is not appropriate to
be included in an authenticated VET transcript. This flexibility is required, noting
that the types of information contained in a transcript may change over time, as noted
above in relation to clause 25.
It is initially envisaged that the regulations will prescribe that the funding source for a
unit or module may be omitted from a transcript without that transcript needing to
include a statement that it is an extract.
53
Part 4
Student Identifiers Agency
Outline of Part
Part 4 of the Bill provides for the establishment of the Agency, which will administer
the student identifier scheme, as well as the appointment of the CEO, staff and
consultants, the Student Identifiers Special Account and the requirements of the
Agencys annual report.
Detailed explanation
Part 4 - Student Identifiers Agency
Division 1 - Establishment etc. of the Agency
Clause 28 establishes the Agency.
Clause 29 provides that the Agency consists of the CEO and the staff of the Agency.
Please note that the Agency does not have a legal identity separate from the
Commonwealth.
Clause 30 provides that the function of the Agency is to assist the CEO in the
performance of his or her functions.
Clause 31 provides that the Agency has the privileges and immunities of the Crown
in the right of the Commonwealth.
Division 2 - Chief Executive Officer
Subdivision A - Functions and powers
Clause 32 creates the office of CEO of the Agency.
Clause 33 provides a list of the functions of the CEO. Where these functions correlate
to other provisions within the Bill that confer a power on the CEO, this is as outlined
below:
to assign student identifiers to individuals (see clause 9);
to verify or give a student identifier of an individual (see clause 13);
to prepare and provide access to authenticated VET transcripts of individuals
or extracts from such transcripts (see clause 25);
54
to ensure that a record of all student identifiers is kept in such form as the
CEO considers appropriate;
to resolve problems that have occurred in relation to the assignment of student
identifiers, including cases where:
o an individual has been assigned more than one student identifier; or
o the same student identifier has been assigned to 2 or more individuals
(see clause 11);
to establish and maintain a mechanism to enable an individual who has been
assigned a student identifier to set controls (the access controls) on:
o the RTOs and VET-related bodies that may request access to an
authenticated VET transcript of the individual; and
o the RTOs and VET-related bodies that may request access to an extract
from an authenticated VET transcript of the individual and the content
of the extract (see clause 26);
any other functions conferred on the CEO by this Act, the regulations or any
other law of the Commonwealth; and
to do anything incidental or conducive to the performance of those functions.
This clause also provides that the CEO has the power to do all things that are
necessary or convenient to be done for, or in connection with, the performance of his
or her functions. This clause operates to ensure that the CEO has the necessary
flexibility required to perform his or her functions.
Clause 34 provides that the Commonwealth Minister may, by legislative instrument,
give written directions to the CEO about the performance of the CEOs functions and
that the CEO must comply with a direction given under this clause.
This clause also provides that the CEO does not have to comply with a direction from
the Commonwealth Minister to the extent that it relates to the CEOs performance of
functions or exercise of powers under the Public Service Act 1999 (the Public Service
Act) in relation to the Agency or under the FMA Act. Please note that any legislative
instrument (including a legislative instrument made under this clause) cannot conflict
with primary legislation. This will mean that an instrument under this clause cannot
be in conflict with the provisions of the Bill or any other Acts of Parliament.
This clause further provides that the Commonwealth Minister must consult the
Standing Council before giving a direction to the CEO.
A note to this clause explains that neither section 42 (disallowance), nor Part 6 of the
Legislative Instruments Act relating to ,,sunsetting apply to the directions. The note
also draws reference to sections 44 and 54 of the Legislative Instruments Act.
Pursuant to section 42 of the Legislative Instruments Act, where a legislative
instrument has been tabled in one of the Houses of Parliament and a notice of motion
to disallow the instrument has been given and passed (within the times prescribed in
section 42), the instrument ceases to have effect. Subsection 44(1) of the Legislative
Instruments Act provides that section 42 does not apply in relation to a legislative
instrument where enabling legislation for the instrument facilitates the establishment
or operation of an intergovernmental body or scheme involving the Commonwealth
and one or more States and authorises the instrument to be made by the body or for
the purposes of the body or the scheme - unless the instrument is a regulation, or the
55
enabling legislation or some other Act has the effect that the instrument is
disallowable (which is not the case here). Subsection 44(1) of the Legislative
Instruments Act would apply with respect to directions under this clause and render
section 42 inapplicable. This means that the instrument containing a ministerial
direction under Clause 34 will not be disallowable.
Part 6 of the Legislative Instruments Act ensures that legislative instruments are kept
up to date and only remain in force for so long as they are needed. Subsection 54(1)
of the Legislative Instruments Act provides that Part 6 does not apply where enabling
legislation for an instrument facilitates the establishment or operation of an
intergovernmental body or scheme involving the Commonwealth and one or more
States and authorises the instrument to be made by the body or for the purposes of the
body or the scheme. That is the case with respect to directions under Clause 34 of the
Bill, so they will not be subject to the sunsetting arrangements in Part 6 of the
Legislative Instruments Act.
Clause 35 provides that the CEO is to be appointed by the Commonwealth Minister
by written instrument on a full-time basis. The Commonwealth Minister must consult
the Standing Council before making such an appointment. Pursuant to section 33A of
the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, (the Acts Interpretation Act) this provision will be
taken to allow the Commonwealth Minister to reappoint the CEO.
Please note that an instrument of appointment would not be a legislative instrument
by virtue of the existing exemption in item 9 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Legislative
Instruments Regulations 2004 (the Legislative Instruments Regulations).
Clause 36 provides that the CEO holds office for the period specified in the
instrument of appointment, and that the period of appointment specified in the
instrument must not exceed 5 years. For the avoidance of doubt, this clause does not
prohibit the reappointment of the CEO under clause 35 after the expiry of the term of
the original instrument of appointment. The period of reappointment is to be
considered separately for the purposes of clause 31 (and not cumulatively with the
earlier appointment period(s)).
Clause 37 provides that the Commonwealth Minister may, by written instrument,
appoint a person to act as CEO during a vacancy in the office of CEO. This includes
where no CEO has previously been appointed. The Commonwealth Minister may also
appoint a person to act as CEO during any or all periods when the CEO is absent from
duty or outside Australia or for any other reason is unable to perform the duties of the
office.
This clause also provides that the Commonwealth Minister must consult the Standing
Council before appointing a person to act as CEO for a continuous period of three or
more months.
Please note that section 33A of the Acts Interpretation Act, which relates to acting
appointments, provides that while the appointee is acting in the office, he or she has,
and may, exercise all the powers and shall perform all the functions and duties of the
holder of the office. Please also note that section 33AB provides that anything done
56
by, or in relation to, a person purporting to act under an acting appointment under an
Act is not invalid merely because the occasion to act had not arisen or had ceased.
Please note that an instrument of appointment would not be a legislative instrument
by virtue of the existing exemption in item 9 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Legislative
Instruments Regulations.
Subdivision C - Terms and conditions of appointment
Clause 38 provides that the CEO is to be paid such remuneration as is determined by
the Remuneration Tribunal or, if no determination of that remuneration is in
operation, the CEO is to be paid such remuneration that is prescribed by the
regulations.
This clause also provides that the CEO is to be paid such allowances as are prescribed
by the regulations.
This clause has effect subject to the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973 which provides
for the Remuneration Tribunal to conduct inquiries and make determinations on the
remuneration of certain office holders.
Such a determination would not be a legislative instrument, by virtue of the existing
exemption under item 11 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Legislative Instruments
Regulations.
Clause 39 provides that the CEOs recreation leave entitlements are determined by
the Remuneration Tribunal.
Such a determination would not be a legislative instrument, by virtue of the existing
exemption under item 11 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Legislative Instruments
Regulations.
This clause also provides that that the Minister may grant the CEO leave of absence
on such terms and conditions as the Minister determines. Such a grant of leave would
not be a legislative instrument, by virtue of the existing exemption under item 11 of
Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Legislative Instruments Regulations.
Clause 40 provides that the CEO must not engage in paid outside employment
without the Ministers approval.
Clause 41 provides that the CEO must give written notice to the Commonwealth
Minister of all interests, pecuniary or otherwise, that the CEO has, or acquires, and
that conflict or could conflict with the performance of the CEOs functions.
Clause 42 makes allowance for the Minister to determine any terms and conditions of
the CEO in relation to matters that are not covered in this Bill.
Such determinations made in writing would not be a legislative instrument, by virtue
of the existing exemption under item 11 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Legislative
Instruments Regulations.
57
Clause 43 provides that the CEO may resign by giving a written resignation to the
Commonwealth Minister.
Such resignations take effect on the day they are received by the Commonwealth
Minister or, if a later day is specified in the resignation, on that later date.
The written resignations would not be a legislative instrument, by virtue of the
existing exemption under item 10 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Legislative
Instruments Regulations.
Clause 44 provides the grounds upon which the CEOs appointment may be
terminated by the Commonwealth Minister. The grounds on which the
Commonwealth Minister may terminate an appointment are:
for misbehaviour; or
if the CEO is unable to perform the duties because of physical or mental
incapacity; or
if the CEO:
o becomes bankrupt; or
o applies to take the benefit of any law for the relief of bankrupt or
insolvent debtors; or
o compounds with his or her creditors; or
o makes an assignment of his or her remuneration for the benefit of his
or her creditors; or
the CEO is absent, except on leave of absence, for 14 consecutive days or for
28 days in any 12 months; or
the CEO engages, except with the Ministers approval, in paid employment
outside the duties of his or her office (see clause 40); or
the CEO fails, without reasonable excuse, to comply with clause 41 (the
requirement to give notice of conflicts of interest).
This clause also provides that the Commonwealth Minister must notify the Standing
Council in the event the CEO is terminated under this clause.
Subdivision D - Delegation
Clause 45 provides that the CEO may delegate, in writing, all or any of his or her
functions or powers to a person that is a member of staff of the Agency under clause
46 or a person to whom an arrangement under clause 47 relates (i.e. seconded
officers).
It is necessary for the CEO to delegate his or her functions and powers to any staff of
the Agency or seconded officers as it is envisaged that it will be administratively
unfeasible for the CEO to personally exercise all their functions and powers under the
Bill.
This clause further provides that the delegate must comply with any written directions
the CEO may give in relation to the delegate performing or exercising powers under
the delegation.
58
Division 3 - Staff and consultants
Clause 46 provides that the staff of the Agency must be engaged under the Public
Service Act. For the purposes of that Act, the CEO and staff of the Agency together
constitute a statutory agency and the CEO is the Head of that Statutory Agency.
Clause 47 allows the CEO to arrange the secondment of Commonwealth, State or
Territory officers to the Agency.
The CEO may arrange with an Agency Head (as defined by the Public Service Act) or
an authority of the Commonwealth for the services of officers or employees of such
an Agency or authority to be made available to assist the CEO in the performance of
his or her functions.
The CEO may also arrange with the appropriate authority of a state or territory for the
services of officers or employees to be made available to assist the CEO in the
performance of their functions. Appropriate authorities are limited to the Public
Service of the state or territory or a body established by or under a law of the state or
territory. Such an arrangement may provide for the Commonwealth to reimburse the
appropriate authority of a state or territory with respect to the services of an officer or
an employee.
This clause further provides that an officer or an employee who is subject to an
arrangement under this clause must follow the directions of the CEO.
Clause 48 provides that the CEO may, on behalf of the Commonwealth, engage
consultants to assist in the performance of their functions. The consultants are to be
engaged on the terms and conditions that the CEO determines in writing.
The written instrument engaging the consultants would not be a legislative instrument,
by virtue of the existing exemption under item 9 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the
Legislative Instruments Regulations.
Division 4 - Special Account
Clause 49 establishes the Student Identifiers Special Account as a Special Account
for the purposes of section 21 of the FMA Act.
A Special Account is an appropriation mechanism that sets aside an amount within
the Consolidated Revenue Fund to be expended for specific purposes. Any amounts
credited to the Student Identifiers Special Account are quarantined from the rest of the
Consolidated Revenue Fund and can only be debited from the Student Identifiers
Special Account for the purposes set out in clause 51.
Clause 50 provides the mechanism for amounts to be credited to the Student
Identifiers Special Account. This clause provides that there must be credited to the
Account amounts equal to the amounts allocated by the Standing Council in
accordance with the National Agreement for Skills and Workforce Development
between the Commonwealth, States and Territories, as in force from time to time.
59
There must also be amounts credited to the account equal to the amounts received by
the Commonwealth in connection with the performance of the CEOs functions,
interest received by the Commonwealth from the investment of amounts debited from
the Account, and amounts of any gifts given or bequests made for the purposes of the
Account.
Please note that an Appropriation Act may contain a provision that if any of the
purposes of a Special Account is covered by an amount in such an Act (whether or not
the Special Account is expressly referred to), then amounts may be debited from the
appropriation for that item and credited into a Special Account.
Please note that section 39, 62 and 62A of the FMA Act apply to any investment of
public money, which includes amounts standing to the credit of the Special Account.
Section 39 provides for the investment of public money where sections 62 and 62A
provide for the delegation of the powers that the Finance Minister and Treasurer have
under these sections respectively.
Clause 51 provides a list of purposes for which the Student Identifiers Special
Account can be debited from.
The Student Identifiers Special Account can be debited for the purposes of paying or
discharging the costs, expenses and other obligations incurred by the Commonwealth
in the performance of the CEOs functions.
The Student Identifiers Special Account can also be debited for the purposes of
paying any remuneration and allowances payable to any person under the Bill. This
will allow, amongst other things, employees, secondees and consultants engaged by
the Agency to be remunerated.
In addition, the Student Identifiers Special Account can also be debited for the
purposes of meeting the expenses of administering the Account.
Please note that section 21 of the FMA Act further provides for, amongst other things,
debits from Special Accounts.
Division 5 - Annual Report
Clause 52 provides that the CEO must give the Commonwealth Minister (for
presentation to Parliament) annual reports relating to the operations of the CEO and
Agency during the year. These annual reports relate to each financial year and must
be provided to the Minister as soon as practicable after the end of each financial year.
Please note that section 34C of the Acts Interpretation Act contains provisions about
periodic reports. Subsection 34C(3) provides that, where an Act requires a periodic
report to be given to the Minister for presentation to Parliament, but does not specify a
time for tabling the report, the Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in
both Houses of Parliament within 15 sitting days after receipt.
60
This clause also provides that the CEO must give a copy of the report to the Standing
Council at the same time as the report is presented to the Parliament.
This clause further provides that if this clause does not commence at the start of a
financial year the period starting at the commencement of this section and ending at
the end of the first 30 June after that commencement is taken for the purposes of this
clause to be a financial year. This will allow the first annual report to report on the
time from which the office of the CEO and the Agency are established until the end of
that financial year, rather than requiring the report to cover a period before this event.
61
Part 5
Other matters
Outline of Part
Part 5 of the Bill provides for other matters including the issuing of VET
qualifications, the disapplication of Division 4 of Part 2 of the Bill (provisions relating
to the collection, use or disclosure of student identifiers), the severability of the Bill
and the power to make regulations.
Detailed explanation
Part 5 - Other matters
Clause 53 provides that an RTO must not issue either a VET qualification or a VET
statement of attainment (within the meaning of the NVETR Act) unless the individual
has been assigned a student identifier.
The purpose of this clause is to ensure that there is maximum participation of students
in the national scheme.
This clause also provides that the prohibition against an RTO issuing a VET
qualification or a VET statement of attainment will not apply where the
Commonwealth Minister specifies, by legislative instrument, an exemption relating to
one or more of:
the RTO issuing the qualification or a statement of attainment;
the qualification or a statement of attainment being issued; or
the individual to whom the qualification or a statement of attainment is being
issued.
The legislative instrument must be agreed with the Standing Council.
These exemptions will be limited to maintain the integrity of the scheme. It is
necessary to provide for limited exemptions in order to be consistent with existing
legislative provisions, such as those relating to issues of national security.
Clause 54 provides, for the avoidance of doubt that the Bill is not intended to exclude
or limit the operation of the law of a state or territory that is capable of operating
concurrently with the Bill.
This clause also provides, for the avoidance of doubt, that nothing in the Bill limits,
restricts or otherwise affects any right or remedy that a person would have had if the
Bill had not been enacted.
62
Clause 55 provides a mechanism by which Division 4 of Part 2 of the Bill (provisions
relating to the collection, use or disclosure of student identifiers) can be disapplied
from a public body of a State or Territory if a declaration is made under this clause.
The purpose of this clause is to allow a State or Territory law to apply to these bodies
if there is existing or future legislation that corresponds to Division 4 of Part 2 of the
Bill and the regulations made under clause 21.
Please note that the requirement that the State or Territory law to correspond with
regulations made under clause 21 will not necessarily mean that, for the purposes of
this clause, the State or Territory law corresponds to the entirety of any regulations
made under the Bill. It is envisaged that regulations will be made under this Bill, once
enacted, that will rely on several clauses within the Bill as authority to make such
regulations. It is only necessary for the state or territory law to correspond to
provisions in any regulations made under clause 21 of the Bill (in addition to Division
4 of Part 2).
The Commonwealth Minister may, in writing, declare that Division 4 of Part 2 of the
Bill does not apply to a public body of a State or Territory if a Minister of the State or
Territory requests the Commonwealth Minister to make such a declaration. The
Commonwealth Minister must also be satisfied that a corresponding law of the State
or Territory is in force and applies to the body. The Standing Council must also agree
to the making of the declaration.
The Commonwealth Minister may, in writing, revoke a declaration made under this
clause in relation to a public body of a State or Territory if the Minister of the State or
Territory requests, by written notice, the Commonwealth Minister to do so. The
Commonwealth Minister may also revoke such a declaration if the Commonwealth
Minister is satisfied that the corresponding law of the State or Territory is no longer in
force or no longer applies to the body and the Standing Council agrees to the
revocation of the declaration.
Please note that it is not necessary for the Commonwealth Minister to be satisfied that
the corresponding law no longer applies nor is it necessary for the Standing Council to
agree to the revocation if the Minister of a State or Territory requests such a
revocation.
This clause further provides that a declaration made under this clause or a revocation
of a declaration are legislative instruments, however section 42 (which provides for
disallowance) and Part 6 (which provides for ,,sunsetting) of the Legislative
Instruments Act does not apply to these declarations or revocations. For an
explanation of disallowance and ,,sunsetting and why this does not apply to this
clause, please see the above explanation of clause 34 of the Bill.
Clause 56 is intended to ensure that the Act is given the widest possible operation
consistent with Commonwealth constitutional legislative power. This clause outlines
the various heads of power that the Commonwealth may rely on under section 51 of
the Constitution in order to validly enact the Bill.
63
This clause provides that without limiting its effect, the Act also has the effect it
would have if its operations were expressly confined to:
matters in relation to which the Commonwealth is under an obligation under
an international agreement, including Article 17 of the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights, done at New York on 16 December 1966;
matters that are of international concern, including the matters dealt with in
paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 of the Guidelines Governing the Protection of Privacy
and Transborder Flows of Personal Data, recommended by the Council of the
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development on 23 September
1980;
acts or omissions that occur outside Australia;
entities that are corporations to which paragraph 51(xx) of the Constitution
applies;
acts or omissions that relate to aliens;
acts or omissions done for purposes relating to census or statistics;
acts done using a postal, telegraphic, telephonic or other like services;
acts or omissions done in connection with the provision of benefits to students;
acts or omissions that occur in a Territory; and
acts or omissions done in the course of trade or commerce:
o between Australia and other countries; or
o among the states; or
o between a territory and a state or another territory.
This clause further provides that a term used in this clause has the same meaning as it
has in the Constitution.
Clause 57 enables the Governor-General to make regulations prescribing matters
required or permitted by the Bill or necessary or convenient for the operation of or
giving effect to this Bill.
This clause also provides that the Commonwealth Minister must obtain the agreement
of the Standing Council to the regulations before the Governor-General makes the
regulations. Any such regulations would be legislative instruments under section 6(a)
of the Legislative Instruments Act.
This clause further provides that despite subsection 14(2) of the Legislative
Instruments Act, a regulation made under this clause may make provision in relation
to a matter by applying, adopting or incorporating, without modification, a matter
contained in an instrument or other writing as in force or existing from time to time.
Under the Legislative Instruments Act, unless a contrary intention appears, subsection
14(2) prohibits a legislative instrument from making provision in relation to a matter
by applying, adopting or incorporating any matter contained in another instrument or
other writing as in force from time to time. This would mean that any document
incorporated into the regulations would refer to the document as it exists at the time of
the commencement of the regulations, rather than as it is amended from time to time.
64