Placement payments an ‘administrative nightmare’ for universities

Australian universities have protested against Canberra’s decision to make them administer payments for students on compulsory placements, saying civil servants are better suited to the role.

A Senate committee has heard that institutions are being dragooned to perform work for which they lack expertise and necessary information. The proposal raises “privacy concerns” and could discourage students from claiming their entitlements, university representatives said.

The committee heard that universities had been consulted on how but not whether they should handle the payments. While they administered scholarships, they would be swamped by the “sheer numbers” of practicum payments.

Alec Webb, executive director of the Regional Universities Network (RUN), said a member had estimated that the new responsibility would entail a “tenfold increase” in this “very manual” sort of work. “The system’s just not set up to accommodate this,” he said.

The committee is examining the “student support” bill, which implements reforms stemming from the Universities Accord. They include widely lauded A$319.50 (£163.44) weekly “prac payments” for students undertaking mandatory placements for teaching, nursing, midwifery and social work degrees.

The payments will be means-tested. A Senate estimates committee in June heard that universities would manage the payments “because they have the best relationship with the students”.

Times Higher Education understands that universities have been given the task partly to ensure that students who work to support themselves are not inadvertently ruled ineligible for prac payments. Compulsory practicums force such students to cancel paid shifts or even quit their jobs.

The eligibility criteria include a “need-to-work” provision whereby students who work more than 15 hours a week in the periods leading up to placements automatically qualify for prac payments.

But the Group of Eight said the government had imposed the administrative job on universities with little rationale and no regulatory impact statement. “Universities are not necessarily best placed to do means-testing or to assess 15 hours of work as eligibility,” said deputy chief executive Matthew Brown.

Universities Australia said the payments potentially raised taxation issues. “This is effectively an income support payment that traditionally has been delivered by commonwealth agencies,” said chief executive Luke Sheehy. “The right people [should be] delivering this payment, with the right level of expertise.”

Mr Webb said RUN had “grave concerns” over students being required to give universities “particularly sensitive information” such as handouts from social security agency Centrelink – another eligibility criterion for the prac payment. “That could be a major deterrent for students,” he warned.

But the National Union of Students said Centrelink was a “bureaucratic nightmare” to deal with. “Cutting out the middleman here and having students apply directly through their universities is the simplest way to make sure this payment will be effective,” said national president Ngaire Bogemann.

She said many needy students did not qualify for Centrelink payments and most universities already had personal details about their students on file.  

Sebastian Harper, president of the National Australian Pharmacy Students’ Association, attended the hearing via teleconference from a placement in the Gulf of Carpentaria. He said he had not fielded any concerns from members worried about giving their personal details to universities.

“I think we would be happy with it either way, whether it was coming from the university or the government. Our focus is on getting them paid.”

The committee is due to report on 3 October.

john.ross@timeshighereducation.com