The higher education reforms announced on Budget night are causing some confusion. Complex reforms are being added to an already complicated system. I am planning on a series of clarifying blog posts to explain what is happening, of which this is the first.
The SMH is running a story on prospective students concerned about fee hikes at the National Institute of Dramatic Art, NIDA.
NIDA is unusual in being subsidised out of the arts budget rather than the education budget. I can’t see anything in the relevant portfolio budget papers about whether NIDA has taken a hit to its funding.
This means that even though NIDA’s students are subsidised, they are classed as full fee by the HELP scheme and borrow under FEE-HELP rather than HECS-HELP. The higher education legislation does not regulate the tuition fees NIDA charges.
For FEE-HELP undergraduates, there is currently a 25% loan fee (eg, a student who borrows $10,000 will have a $12,500 debt recorded). This will be abolished, reducing the initial cost of attending NIDA assuming no further fee changes. However, students will in future be charged an interest rate based on the 10-year bond rate rather than CPI.
NIDA has typically pitched its fee around the level of undergraduate student contributions in comparable courses. If these increase at universities then it is possible that NIDA will see market space to increase its own fees. But there is nothing in the Budget higher education reforms that will require them to lift their charges.
The SMH article quotes 23-year old Oliver Wicks, soon to complete an arts degree, as reconsidering pursuing an education at NIDA due to potential increased cost. However, any increased fees are the least of his worries. As Grattan’s recent HELP doubtful debt report found, a high proportion of performing arts graduates don’t earn enough to start repaying.