Kate Chaney (Curtin, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Universities Accord (Australian Tertiary Education Commission) Bill 2025. I support an Australian Tertiary Education Commission, or ATEC, in principle. The universities accord's final report makes a compelling case that our tertiary education system has lacked long-term stewardship, coordinated planning and a strong evidence base. It's a system that's too important to run on chaotic political and short-term policy. But here's the problem: this bill does not establish the ATEC the accord recommended. It establishes a body called ATEC, but it doesn't give it the independence, the authority or the capability that would justify setting it up at all. In its current form, it risks becoming a lightly rebranded branch of the department—additional bureaucracy for no reason—constrained, dependent and unable to do the hard, long-term work the accord envisaged. I support ATEC in theory, but I oppose this legislation as drafted.

I'm not alone. My position has been shaped by consultation with higher education experts and university groups, and by close reading of the submissions made to the Senate committee inquiry. There's a consistent message across many of them: yes to an ATEC in concept, but no to an ATEC that cannot act independently, cannot publish freely and cannot build its own capability. In other words, if ATEC is not meaningfully different from the department then why bother? I'll be moving amendments to attempt to fix these defects, and if the government will not accept these essential changes then I'm unlikely to support this bill in its current form.

Firstly, why do we need an ATEC at all? The universities accord's final report is blunt about the nature of the challenge. It says:

Our tertiary education system lacks the coordinated, future-focused and evidence-based, decision-making capacity necessary for Australia's future success. This must change.

This is not a theoretical complaint. The accord documents a pattern of policy drift, fragmentation and failure, not because universities are incapable but because the system has lacked an enduring steward with the remit and capability to plan across electoral cycles.

Let me give some specific examples of fragmented and short-term policy that the accord identifies that a future ATEC would help deal with if designed properly. First is the failed Job-Ready Graduates scheme. The accord says plainly that this needs to be replaced. The central premise—using price signals to shift student course choices—has failed. It left some students facing extremely high contributions and debts that don't reflect their future earning potential, and it shifted the funding burden further onto students and away from government. At the same time, it reduced funding available to universities to deliver disciplines critical to future jobs and innovation, including science, engineering and mathematics. This is what short-term, politically driven policy looks like: a major reform implemented with insufficient evidence and follow-through, producing outcomes that undermine national objectives. A second example is a funding model that no longer delivers for Australians. The accord identifies that the current funding arrangements are limiting enrolments of students from underrepresented backgrounds, and are not able to support growth in the tertiary sector in order to meet our nation's skill needs.

These examples point to the need for long-term, evidence based stewardship of the tertiary education system focused on outcomes for students and for Australia. This is why ATEC matters. But if ATEC is to solve these problems, it must be built as the accord envisaged—independent, expert and able to work across electoral cycles, not constrained to speak only when invited and not prevented from publishing uncomfortable truths.

Let's look at what the bill actually does. It establishes ATEC as the steward of the higher education system. It will be led by three commissioners—a chief commissioner, a First Nations commissioner and a part-time commissioner—appointed by the minister and collectively expected to bring balanced experience across higher education, VET, governance, engagement and regional Australia. ATEC's functions include: negotiating mission based compacts with universities and tertiary education providers; consulting widely across the tertiary system; and providing advice and recommendations to Commonwealth and state and territory ministers about the tertiary education system on request of the minister. These mission based compacts between the ATEC and higher education providers are the main mechanism for sustained engagement with the sector. They allow each provider to show how its unique mission aligns with national, state and local priorities, and they set a limited but meaningful set of performance objectives agreed collaboratively. The ATEC will take a good-faith, proportionate approach, supporting improvements, varying terms where needed and only escalating if performance remains below expectations.

There are some good parts of this. The most positive outcome of this bill is that it recognises that the ATEC is needed in principle. It accepts the accord's logic. But the accord did not call for another advisory unit inside the machinery of the department; it called for a steward that could provide robust advice, support evidence based decision making and planning, and work across political cycles with a long time horizon. If the bill doesn't deliver that then it fails its own justification.

Now I want to talk about the amendments that were moved. I oppose the bill as drafted because it doesn't create the ATEC that Australia needs. Firstly, we need to provide the ATEC with autonomy and independence. The ATEC should have the ability to initiate and publish advice and recommendations on its own initiative, rather than solely at the request of the minister. Without this independence, there seems little point in creating a new organisation that largely duplicates the department's work. If it can only speak when asked and can only publish when approved then it's not an independent steward; it's an adviser on a leash, and this matters because the hardest issues in higher education reform are often politically inconvenient. Job-ready Graduates is a clear example.

Operational autonomy matters too. Currently, the department controls the ATEC's staffing and contractor engagement, which could undermine the ATEC's capacity to build expertise and undertake independent analysis. That's not the design of an independent steward. This issue has been raised by a huge number of stakeholders, including Universities Australia, the Group of Eight, the Regional Universities Network, Science and Technology Australia, Professor Andrew Norton and Professor Julia Horne. As a result, I'll move amendments to: firstly, omit the requirement that the ATEC may only prepare reports and provide advice at the request of the minister, and ensure the ATEC can initiate and publish reports and advice itself; secondly, require the ATEC and the department to enter into an enforceable agreement that will specify minimum staffing levels and standards.

The second area of reform is around the number of commissioners. As drafted, there's significant concern that three commissioners will not have the expertise across a diverse range of fields and areas such as higher education, VET, tertiary education, governance and administration, stakeholder consultation, engagement, regional Australia and other important areas as well, including research, equity and access, and learning and teaching. As such, I will move amendments to introduce two additional part-time commissioners to bring the total number of commissioners to five. Again, this change is backed by a number of stakeholders: the Group of Eight, Regional Universities Network, Professor Andrew Norton and Professor Julia Horne.

Thirdly, I'm going to introduce an explicit focus on research and research training. Research is central to Australia's economic strength, innovative capacity and international competitiveness. The accord identifies that our research system is under strain. We have low national R&D investment, weak innovation outputs, inadequate research training stipends and a need for a pathway to fund more of the full economic costs of research. The accord also explicitly calls for the ATEC to be a steward of the research sector yet the bill doesn't make the ATEC's research stewardship role explicit in the functions and advice framework. This is a serious omission. And, again, it's a problem raised by a large number of stakeholders. So I'll move amendments to allow the ATEC to prepare reports and advice in relation to research and research training to ensure the commissioners collectively possess experience in research and research training.

The fourth area of amendments would allow the ATEC to consider student contributions. As it stands, the ATEC can provide advice on the efficiency and cost of higher education programs but it can only consider the cost of courses and programs borne by the Commonwealth not borne by students. You can't meaningfully talk about course costs and funding sustainability if you only look at the Commonwealth side of the ledger. Students pay a significant share and they need to be considered as well, so I'll move an amendment to allow the ATEC to consider student contribution amounts as well as Commonwealth contribution amounts.

I also want to address the issue of international student caps. This bill provides the ATEC with the function to allocate international student caps for different universities and providers at the request of the minister. As I understand it from discussions with the minister's office, further legislation is required to provide the minister with the power to set enforceable caps for international students before ATEC can use this function, so this bill paves the way for future legislation that will allow those student caps. The government tried to introduce this power in—

See this speech in context