The COPHE submission outlines the disproportionate impacts of the proposed publication changes on private providers and the shortcomings of the proposal in the protection of students.

COPHE Submission to the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee Inquiry: Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (A More Sustainable, Responsive and Transparent Higher Education System) Bill 2017.

Australian Independent Higher Education Providers Ranked Highly in Student Quality Rankings. The 2017 QILT results demonstrate the high quality of Australia’s independent higher education providers.

Private providers should be given access to HEPPP funding because they cater for almost as many SES students as NUHEPs. Students, especially those who need encouragement, should be free to choose the course that will best meet their needs and aspirations, public or private, and still receive HEPP funding and Commonwealth Supported Places.

COPHE made this submission to the Department of Education and Training on proposed changes to the National Code of Practice for Providers of Education and Training to Overseas Students 2007.

COPHE endorses the Admissions Transparency Implementation Working Group’s (IWG) process but at this stage, as a peak representative body for private providers, cannot endorse the Plan itself.

In response to ‘Driving Innovation, Fairness and Excellence in Australian Higher Education’, COPHE agrees that “a strong higher education system benefits everyone” (P2 ) but to do this, it must meet the needs of all its students, including those in the private sector.

COPHE welcomes the opportunity to participate in this inquiry as there are constraints on competition arising from inconsistencies in public policy in the higher education sector that have been identified but not yet addressed.

COPHE endorses all of the Principles set out in the Discussion Paper with the exception of the proposal (at Principle 7) that a single online platform be created to provide a guide to admissions policies. This may impede other, possibly more elegant ways, of providing admissions transparency.

COPHE broadly supported the changes, clarifications and simplifications, with one main exception. It also noted progress on the IEAA DET on the agent project to develop a Code of Ethics and a national accreditation and registration scheme for education agents.