Australia System of Governance - Essay Example

CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF TESQA ACT 2011 AND ENFORCEABILITY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSALND STUDENT NAME PROFFESORS NAME COURSE TITLE DATE Table of Contents Introduction 3 Australia Higher Education Regulation prior to entry of TESQA Act 4 Bradley Review 7 The Constitution 8 Constitutional Validity of TESQA 10 Corporations Power Section 51 (xx) of Australian Constitution 13 TESQA ACT 17 Effects of TESQA Act on State’s Capacity to regulate Higher Education 18 Decision of the State of Queensland 19 Applicability to USQ 20 Conclusion 21 BIBLIOGRAPHY 23 Introduction Australia system of governance is that of federalism whereby power in relation to making binding laws is divided between the Commonwealth and the state parliament. In this system, the state retains part of the sovereign power to make laws in areas that the Commonwealth has not effectively legislated on. Higher education is one such area and in history, the states have always been mandated to regulate and pass legislation that is in the best interest of provision of higher education in universities. Higher education services are provided by both public and private universities and each have always regulated themselves in terms of quality, activities and programs. The regulating higher education by the Commonwealth has been precipitated by insistence of the Commonwealth to control the accreditation process and establishment of higher education institutions, governance, ownership and management of universities and the general law to apply to education1. This is against the backdrop of the Constitutional provision that fails to articulate the role of the Commonwealth in controlling higher education. There has been a constant call for the establishment of a national framework that regulates higher education but Constitutional incapacity has limited the establishment of this regime2. It is in these unique circumstances that courts are usually tasked with the enormous burden of interpreting the intentions of the wording of both the Constitution and legislation to effectively determine the laws validity, despite the fact that the courts cannot change the legislation and interpret it in a manner that it causes hardship to the parties. An injunction is at special equitable remedy that temporarily stops a party from carrying out certain duties and maintains the status quo until the case is determined. In this case, therefore if an injunction were to be granted Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (“TESQA”) would stop any processes in evaluating University of Queensland (USQ) pending the outcome of the merits of the case. An injunction is granted at the discretion of the court, therefore constitutional cases are important issues of public interest. This paper will analyse a hypothetical case of University of Southern Queensland (USQ) that has been approached by TEQSA to provide and submit information and documentation in relation to its activities. USQ has filed a suit seeking an injunction and a declaration that the Act is invalid both on its face and as applied it exceeds the powers granted to parliament by Commonwealth Constitution (‘The Constitution”). The questions presented for determination is whether the Act derives its validity from the Constitution and depending on the answer to the first question whether the Act is constitutionally applicable to USQ. Australia Higher Education Regulation prior to entry of TESQA Act Australia embraces a two-tier system of governance that is the federal government that is controlled by the commonwealth and the state governments each having its own legislative assembly or parliament. For years, the central government or commonwealth has clamoured for control of certain aspects of governance and this includes higher education. This has also been caused by increase in dependence on the central government and due to the fact that the Commonwealth controls the taxation regime while the states and territories are supposed to provide services hence a symbiotic relationship exists between the Commonwealth and the States but the Commonwealth having an advantage over territories and states3. There are 37 public higher education institutions with two private institutions that self-accrediting. The Commonwealth of Australia, Department of Employment and Workplace (DEEWR) was the self-accrediting body that accredited the government’s awards. There are also non-accrediting universities in Australia that receive their accreditation status through the States in which they operate with the states maintaining their own register that list the higher education service providers within their state. The Australian Higher education for years has been state-based and changes have been taking place in terms of regulation to create a national scheme. In June 2011, the Federal Parliament passed the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011 (“TESQA Act”). The Act creates Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (‘TESQA’) an independent regulatory body mandated to oversight the higher education sector. TESQA was originally proposed in the Bradley Review 2008 that advocated for the creation of a framework that would be applied in the higher education sector to establish objectivity and create a comparative benchmark of quality performance4. The National Protocols for Higher Education Approval Processes (‘NPHEAP’) though creating a framework for regulation within the States they were not enforceable legally but were used only as guidelines and were not clear on standards used to measure quality5. As earlier indicated the universities were not intended to be subject to the legislative powers of the Commonwealth but they fell within the scope of state power6. The role that was played by the State in higher education provision as provided by the Constitution was to legislate for the benefits of students7 and taxation8. The role of the State in regulation of higher education since 1974 was funding higher education through the Higher Education Act 2003 (Cth). The prerequisites for funding were that a higher education institution must be approved with the federal state subjecting it to accountability and quality requirements9. In the case of Victoria v the Commonwealth (Second Uniform Tax case)10 the court held that the money granted by the state through federal appropriation was to be given conditionally hence the Commonwealth can exert significant practical influence in higher education through monetary pressure. In the regulation of higher education, the Commonwealth has considered creating a national framework that regulates higher education to ensure quality and good education is provided to students. The limit of the scope of regulation of higher education institution is brought about by the legal validity of creating a higher education regulatory body where the Constitution is silent on the role of the Commonwealth in enacting legislation that controls provision of higher education. Principally most of Australian institutions of higher education have created their own statute that guarantees provision of services to students and also the award of degrees with intervention from the state in relation to registration of universities and other services. The role of the Commonwealth over higher education has not been limited by the absence of explicit provision on education on education; the Constitution gives power to the Commonwealth to grant states monetary funding on the premise the money is spent on how the Commonwealth decides. The conditions imposed on monetary funding were not contemplated by the Constitution drafters, but the universities have been funded through these conditional grants11. Bradley Review It is the discretion of the court to use relevant materials relevant to the case to determine the validity of this case. The Court takes into account the Bradley Review in 2008 that was initiated by the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia to examine the future of Australian higher education in achieving the government vision and a fair Australia. The principal object of this review was to determine whether the Higher Education sector was structured appropriately to ensure that it is competitive globally. It is important to state that the recommendation of the review precipitated the creation of TESQA Act whose validity is under determination in this case. In the recommendations of the review, it highlighted that the government must ensure that Australia has a world-class higher education system, embrace a funding framework and adopt a quality assurance and regulation framework. The need to create a regulatory framework was because of duplication of accreditation bodies, and a Commonwealth legislation that governs universities that imposes scrutiny of higher education institutions12. The creation of TESQA Act is to reduce cross-jurisdictional issues in reporting, protection of academic freedom and “crowding out”13. The multiple frameworks created inconsistency and poor teaching quality with no minimum standards and assessment of the quality of education14. The Australian dependency on states regulation as opposed to Commonwealth regulation has created inconsistency in the regulation, governance and accreditation systems existing in Australia. The Court also takes into account a case study on Greenwich University that was established in 1998. The committee that was set-up to investigate Greenwich University suitability to be registered under Australian Qualification Framework (AQF) register stated that it failed to meet the standards since ‘the standard of its courses, quality assurance mechanisms failed to meet Australian standards. It is cases such as this that the state has to intervene to protect the students and the reputation of Australia in offering higher education. TESQA Act is necessitated by the need of protecting the welfare of students and Australia and therefore it is of public interest as well. The Constitution The Constitution has been defined as the “supreme law of the land”, from which the sovereign and different arms of government derive their authority and validity in making government decisions and creation of legislation. It is presumed by law that all Acts that are created by the Parliament, actions and orders must conform to the constitution and any act that is “ultra vires” to the Constitutional order is invalid. The High Court unanimously in 1920 in R v Brisbane Licensing Court ex parte Daniell15 that; “Where a thing is declared illegal, whatever may the object of the prohibition, the thing declared illegal is of no force or validity and everything dependent on that thing… shares the same fate of the thing prohibited.”16 The classical case categorically states that an unconstitutional legislation is ‘void ab initio’ and that any act that is done by the state or government under that legislation is illegal and void. If this case would be the ultimate decider of whether then the TESQA Act is illegal and invalid since its creation is not backed by a specific and definite provision of the Constitution. However it is the prerogative of the court to determine the validity of a law and if the court pronounces against it then it would be invalid thereafter17. In practice, the Commonwealth and States/Territories have passed legislation that is defective constitutionally and the legislation has operated regardless of there being no constitutional backing. The case of Kostis v Kostis18 was instituted in challenging the orders made by registrars under the Matrimonial Causes Act (Cth )(1959)19 that section 77 (ii) of the Constitution permitted the Commonwealth to invest state courts with federal jurisdiction hence the registrars were not part of the ‘relevant court’. The outcome of the court decision implied that provisions do not validate a constitutionally defective Act but they operate prospectively by creating new rights modelled on defective decrees. It is in the opinion of the court that the TESQA Act is one such legislation whose timing is to improve the standards of higher education but its application must not cause hardship to universities such as USQ that have already established a coherent structure in the award of degrees, accreditation of programs and student recruitment. It would be more appropriate if the TESQA Act is prospective in nature that is it would apply to only programs and universities that would be introduced after the entry of the act and not to programs that have been already accredited by other institutions that existed prior to establishment of TESQA. The object of the Constitution has been defined by Chase C J in Texas v White20 an American case as “an indestructible Union composed of indestructible states”. In a NSW case Baxter v Commissioners of Taxation21 the court held that the sovereignty of a state cannot be interfered with by any external force, however the only interference permitted is that which is described by the constitution. Therefore any action that is undertaken by the Commonwealth must fall within the ambits of the Constitution, however this case analyses a special area of legislative powers of whether the Commonwealth can legislate on issues relating to regulation of higher education where the Constitution does not expressly state its role in Higher education. In D’Emden v Pedder22 the Court held that if a state “attempts to give its legislative or executive authority an operation which if valid would fetter control or interfere with free exercise of the legislative or executive power of the Commonwealth the attempt would be invalid and inoperative unless authorized by the Constitution. Constitutional Validity of TESQA It is important in this case to establish the source of the Commonwealth legislative power. Section 51 is the head of legislative power. It is however stated in the case of Marbury v Madison23 that the judiciary is vested with the duty and responsibility of declaring the boundary of constitutional power24. The court therefore has jurisdiction to determine the constitutional validity of legislation. The power to make laws is limited to making laws for the peace, good governance and order within the Commonwealth. The TESQA Act derives its validity from: “This Act relies on; - (a) the Commonwealth’s legislative powers under paragraphs 51(xx) and (xxxix), and section 122, of the Constitution: and (b) any other Commonwealth legislative power to the extent that the Commonwealth has relied, or relies, on the power to establish a corporation”25 The Commonwealth expressly relies on the corporation’s power provision to exercise its legislative powers over universities and institutions of higher learning. The other provisions are in relation to matters that are incidental to the exercise of powers that are vested in the Commonwealth Parliament in the Constitution and the power to legislate for the government territories. In cases such as this, it is the responsibility of the High court to determine whether the universities are trading corporations as defined in the constitution. Moreover, it need to establish and whether, any legislation passed by the Commonwealth is valid and can be applied to USQ or whether USQ is entitled to the relief sought of an injunction and a declaration on the validity of TESQA Act. It is important to make a clear observation about the Constitutional provision on education. The Australian Constitution does not state in any particular section the words ‘education’, ‘college’, ‘academy’ or ‘university’ and does not set out the subjects that the Commonwealth can legislate on in relation to education. This therefore means that the Constitution does not expressly state the roles of the Commonwealth in regulating higher education and therefore most of the universities both private and public derive the power to confer and award degrees through state or territorial legislation. Most of the public universities have their own statutes that regulate their activities that are audited by the states Auditor-Generals. State governments also have the power to accredit any new courses that are offered by the universities. USQ has passed the USQ Strategic Plan 2013-2015, USQ Annual Report 2012 and Institutional Performance Portfolio all which are intended to guide the institution on its programs, activities and performance. It is arguable that the Commonwealth in the past did not interfere with the administrative and internal affairs of the universities. Regulation was state based however, the Commonwealth provided funds for the running of public universities. Professor Greg Graven stated “Common wealth power in regulation of higher education is a practical attempt to regulate and pass legislation would be dependent on the cooperation with the states and that the Commonwealth lacks the “cohesive constitutional power to regulate the higher education sector comprehensively26.” There is a general implied power that is conferred to the Commonwealth that is implied from nationhood27. This power generally is implied from the Constitution that the Commonwealth is permitted as is necessary to exercise limited executive power if the existence of that power is intrinsic to the existence of Australia as a nation state28. This power can to an extent permit the Commonwealth to exercise powers that relate to higher education in aspects of national agenda and in this case TESQA can be justified through this implied power of nationhood. Corporations Power Section 51 (xx) of Australian Constitution The historical perspective of the Constitutional provision on higher education was not intended for the Commonwealth to have legislative powers over regulation and management. The issue of higher education was also not enumerated under section 51 and it that universities are classic instance of continuing state power29. This can be demonstrated by the fact that those who drafted the Constitution presumed that the universities were corporations but they were not trading corporations and thus they would not fall under the corporation power stipulated under Constitution30. The Constitution states that the Commonwealth Parliament has the powers to make laws with respect to “foreign corporations and trading or financial corporation’s formed within the limits of the commonwealth”31 Constitutional lawyer Greg Graven has opined that “the High Court has defined a trading corporation in broad terms that "It basically means any corporation that has some trading activity. All universities have trading activity and therefore they're caught [by the definition],"32 However Professor Williams states that the Act would be valid under corporation’s power however the scope of its application would only be limited since some or all of the Australian universities are not trading corporations33. The is also a limit in application of TESQA by the constitution as further stated by Professor Williams, that it would apply if the university is a constitutional corporation and therefore if USQ is created through state legislation, it would be a constitutional corporation. Henceforth, it would be considered as a trading corporation and not a financial or a foreign corporation34. The application of corporation power has been predicated by the ‘Dingjan test’ in the case of Re Dingjan ex parte Wagner35that only activities that are entirely connected with the affairs of a trading corporation are regulabale under section 51(xx) of the Australian corporation. The court has to determine whether universities are “trading corporations” under the Constitution. It is clear that the intention of the Drafters of Australian Constitutions was not to include universities as trading corporations 36 but the courts have considered universities as being corporations. In the case of Tasmani v Commonwealth37 the nature of a corporation was not significant but consideration was dependent on whether or not the corporations conduct significant or substantial trading activities. The High Court of Australia have not interpreted in any case the question “Are Universities trading corporations?” but it has been determined in the Federal Court in Quickenden v O’Connor38where the test of determining whether a university is a trading corporation would include examining the extent of their trading activities. The sole purpose in creating a university would be to provide higher education, and trading activities would be in my opinion incidental to the running of the university and trading is not its most important function. In this case, whether the university in an educational or a trading corporation it would not be taken into account. Most if not all universities currently operate and run significant trading activities such as sale of notes, provision of accommodation services, bookshops, restaurants among other business activities and it is beyond doubt that Universities in Australia have transformed into trading corporations that fall within the ambits of constitution a fact that has been confirmed in the University of Western Australia39. The other issue to be determined is whether the Commonwealth under section 51(xx) may regulate the activities undertaken by institutions of higher education. The Constitution is unclear on what kind of activities that they ought to regulate if the University is defined as a “trading corporation”. The Commonwealth can legitimately regulate university activities as long as they are “trading activities” but its actions would be invalid if it regulates activities that are not trade related40. In Australian case law, the courts have stated that the activities that are connected with the trading activities carried out by the corporation will be regulated under the Constitution. A nexus or relationship must be established between the law in question and the character of the corporation as a ‘trading corporation’. The question is whether the “conditions” imposed on funding of higher education, gives the Commonwealth extensive powers regulate universities and institutions of higher learning effectively. This is an implied power and not an express provision in the Constitution. Further if the Commonwealth decides not to fund higher education would the institutions effectively run and provide quality education as stated in many legislation. In the words of Justice Mason, the Commonwealth has been allowed by the constitution to ‘engage in enterprises and activities that peculiarly adapted to the government of a nation which cannot otherwise be carried on for the benefit of the nation’. This includes ‘incentives in science, literature and arts’41 It is in the opinion of many scholars that the Constitution limits the kind of powers that the Commonwealth can exercise in relation to regulating higher education and there is a potential negative impact if it increases its control through funding. The Commonwealth cannot exert control on admission for students who are not funded by Commonwealth and if the Commonwealth fails to fund the universities then the University would retain its autonomy. There is also concern on the interference by the commonwealth of academic freedom since the Minister would directly control this. There are also constitutional dilemmas that the Commonwealth would face in relation to section 51 (xxxi) where the Commonwealth is vested with the powers to compulsorily acquire the property of a person or state. If universities are to be transferred from their statutes as State or Territories statutory corporations then universities will be considered as statutory corporations of the Commonwealth. The interests of the State in universities would diminish along with their rights to property. This is not among the issues presented in this case, but it is worth mentioning some of the dilemmas presented in transferring higher education to control by the Commonwealth. TESQA ACT The TESQA Act is a state based regulatory system where higher education institutions need to be registered before can confer any higher education awards. This means that all the courses done by universities need to be accredited by TESQA before the courses are offered to students in relation to regulated higher education award. The objects of the act is to ensure that there is national consistency in regulation of higher education, that higher education uses a standard based quality framework and principles relating to regulatory necessity and risk and proportionality, enhance the reputation of Australia in higher education and training services , protect student through provision quality higher education and access to information42. The TESQA Act applies three basic principles; regulatory necessity43, reflecting risk44 and proportionate regulation45. TESQA in requesting USQ to furnish it with documents of their activities only means that TESQA is exercising its rights under its The consequence of the act as stated by Williams and Pillai (2011 293) is that “failing to register with TEQSA implies that any institution of higher education will be charged with criminal offences since they would be offering unaccredited courses and breaching the conditions necessary for accreditation46. USQ in considering whether to furnish TESQA with necessary documentation must consider the criminal proceedings that are likely to be instituted against them by TESQA. TESQA has broadened the regulation of universities where coercive action can only be used after compliance has been agreed to through negotiation. Qualification necessary for a person to teach the higher education institutions, one is required to be qualified in at least one Qualification Standard level higher than the course of study being taught or with equivalent professional experience. Effects of TESQA Act on State’s Capacity to regulate Higher Education Doubts have been raised about the legality of the government use of corporation law to give TESQA powers to register and deregister universities in order to for its courses to be accredited. Justice Robert French stressed that there is a contrast existing between universities and commercial activities since ‘unlike corporations, the commercial activities of a university were not an end to themselves but a means to support “a broad education mission”’47 Further, the effect of establishing TESQA brings about the diminishing of a state’s capacity to make policies that relates to Higher Education48. Professor Masssaro that the TESQA Act is a perfect example of ‘high stakes conflict’ if it allows an underfunded university to give support to students who have low entry marks with it being a heavy-handed regulator at the expense of quality assurance49. The application of the TESQA Act does not classify the institutions that need to be regulation and those that are experienced institutions with great historical records that will be dragged into single approach regulation50. It would be best of new universities being closely regulated by TESQA. According Fred Himler the NSW vice-chancellor; “Australia’s universities are drowning in red tape, crippled by funding shortages and struggling against an incoherent research policy, there are too many policy changes, combined with a lack of opposition by university leaders, leading to an oppressive government regulation and chronic under-funding51. Decision of the State of Queensland Upon analysis of various issues that relate to the Constitutional validity of TESQA Act to regulation of Court finds that the Act is valid under the Constitution. USQ was established in 1909 under the University of Queensland Act of 1909 whose sole purpose was to incorporate and endow the University of Queensland with the responsibility of offering higher education in the state of Queensland. The TESQA Act has been passed by the Commonwealth as a matter of necessity. This is because Australia as a member of the international community, increasingly facing competition from other states in offering higher education to both the local and international students must create proper policies that accord Australia the best practice framework in offering higher education. The TESQA Act provides this opportunity to Australia to improve higher education, accredit university and bring one system of regulation in Australia. It is a long by precedent stated by the High Court in D’Emden v Pedder52 that the Commnwealth is completely immune from state law unless the Constitution expressly states the extent of invalidity. It is without doubt that there is no express provision in the Constitution that expressly states that the Commonwealth has the authority to legislate over Higher Education. However, a country has a duty to create legislation that advocates for the betterment of the society and protection of social welfare. This duty is in principle enshrined in the Australian Constitution to protect the people’s interest. The states or territories powers are not entirely diminished in regulating universities but the Commonwealth has played its role in the funding of this activity and legislation on regulation furthers the quality of education and social welfare of students. The legislation is valid since it is not retrogressive and punitive in nature since it is in the advancement of social good of Australia. Applicability to USQ The case presented is unique in my opinion since the parties have stated that the factual record to be used in this case are USQ Strategic Plan 2013-2015, USQ Annual Report 2012, and USQ Institutional Performance Portfolio 2012. The court must however take into account the historical aspects and creation of USQ to determine the scope of whether it is to be regulated entirely by TESQA Act 2013 or TESQA powers are limited when dealing with USQ. USQ is a statutory corporation and through its documents produced in the Court, it has complied with most of the quality standards that are required under the TESQA Act. It has been compelled to cooperate with the TESQA to an extent the activities that are “trading in nature” as well as those that focus on student welfare, academic programs as well as the academic programs. The University has shown commitment to partner with institutions to ensure that the visions of USQ are met. USQ has through its own internal administration created policy documents and annual reports that gives information on how the university is government, student programs, financial statements and obligations, learning and visions of future study. TESQA’s roles are not new to USQ and it would not exercise powers that are outside the powers that were previously exercised by state regulatory bodies. The only new requirement is to meet the legal requirements under TESQA to avoid institution of criminal or civil proceedings for not complying with the TESQA Act provision on registration and accreditation. Section 58 (1) of TESQA Act states that the Minister may through a legislative instrument make standards that together with the Research Standards53 would make the Higher Education Standards Framework. The standards that are to be met relate to registration, category, and course accreditation standards54. This court in studying the documents provided by USQ; namely the USQ Strategic Plan 2013-2015 and the USQ Annual Report all gives TESQA the necessary information on the standards of USQ in relation to provision of higher education. Conclusion The Commonwealth enjoys significant powers in the provision and regulation of higher education. Further, the Common wealth has the power to influence and create higher education policy through conditional funding. The Corporations power cannot effectively grant TESQA Act validity however, the Commonwealth has interest in Higher Education through its funding duty. It is important to state that the power to fund does not extensively give the Commonwealth legislative powers over it but it is in my opinion, the cooperation of both the states and the Commonwealth that would ultimately ensure exclusive control of higher education. Further the Constitution derives its validity from the people and therefore public interest must be well secured in the creation of legislation that advance the best interest of the citizens USQ is a State statutory corporation incorporated in 1909 and therefore it can fall under the Commonwealth legislative powers. Its programs, course, registration and accreditation must be investigated by the Commonwealth to ensure that they are competitive with other institutions offering higher education internationally. In conclusion, therefore Australia must ensure that the laws created are consistent, progressive and evolve with the needs of the society since static legislation can prove to be incapable of protecting modern needs of its people. BIBLIOGRAPHY A. Books/ Journal Articles/ Reports Bateman Will, ‘Legislating against Constitutional Validity: Constitutional Deeming Legislation’ (2012) 34 Sydney Law Review 721 Benard Lane, ‘TEQSA statute vulnerable to High Court challenge’, The Australian, 2012 13 April Benard Lane, ‘Watchdog Powers will need Court Test’, The Australian 2012 June, 4 Booker K, Glass A and Watt R, Federal Constitutional Law: An Introduction (Butterworths, 1998) George Williams and Sangeetha Pillai, ‘Common Wealth Power over Higher education’ (2011) 30 (2) University of Queensland Law Journal 287-203 Greg Graven, ‘Commonwealth Power Over Higher Education: Implications and Realities’ (2006) 1 (1) Public Policy 1, 1 Norton Andrew, ‘Commonwealth Control of Universities’ Norton, Andrew (2005) Commonwealth Control of Universities. Agenda 12 (2) 99-114 Ross J, ‘TESQA, ASQA ‘will never’ merge’, The Australian, 13 October 2012 Sally Varnham, ‘Uni Sector strangled by red tape’, The Australian & ABC News 26 July 2012 Zines Leslie, The High Court and the Constitution, ( Butterworths, 3rd ed, 1992). B. CASES Baxter v Commissioners of Taxation (1907) 4 CLR 1087 at 1121 D’Emden v Pedder (1904) 1 CLR 91 Davis v Commonwealth (1988) 166 CLR 79 Huddart Parker and Co.Pty Ltd v Moorehead (1909) 8 CLR 330, 394 Kostis v Kostis(1970) 122 CLR 69 Marbury v Madison (1951) 83 CLR 1 Quickenden v O’Connor (2001) FCA 303 R v Brisbane Licensing Court ex parte Daniell (1920) 28 CLR 23 Re Dingjan ex parte Wagner (1995) 183 CLR 323 South Australia v Commonwealth (1942) 65 CLR 373,408 Tasmani v Commonwealth (1983)158 CLR Texas v White (1868) 74 US 700 Victoria v the Commonwealth (Second Uniform Tax case)(1957) 99 CLR 575 C. LEGISLATION Australian Constitution Higher Education Support Act 2003 (Cth) Matrimonial Causes Act (1959) (Cth) Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011 (Cth) D.Other Bradley Review 2008 Dawkins P and Bhajan Grewal, ‘Regulations and Commonwealth-State Relations: The Case of Education’ Paper presented at Improving Regulatory Performance Conference organized by Victorian Competition & Efficiency Commission, Melbourne 1 April 2011 Minister for Tertiary Education Explanatory Statement of the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011: Higher Education Standards Framework. Universities Australia, ‘Universities Australia Submission to the Review of Australian Higher Education’ 2008 The Australian National University, Submission to the Review of the Education Services for Overseas Students (ESOS) Act 2000, 2009 Williams, G ‘Submission to the Senate Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Committee, Inquiry into the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Bill’ 2011, p. 1. Read More