Allegra Spender (Wentworth, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Universities Accord (Australian Tertiary Education Commission) Bill 2025 and the Universities Accord (Australian Tertiary Education Commission) (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025. Many in this House will have wonderful memories from their time at university—a time of discovery, of independence and of learning not only about the world but also about ourselves. For many Australians, it is the first time they are away from home, the first time they encounter ideas that challenge them and the first time they start to imagine the contribution they might make to our country. That sense of possibility is what our higher education system should offer every Australian—the opportunity to learn, to grow and to build a future.

Higher education is vital to Australia's future. As our fourth-largest export, it is a driver of national prosperity today and the foundation for tomorrow. It underpins economic growth, social mobility and research capability, and it strengthens our democracy through critical thinking and civic participation. My community cares deeply about access to high-quality education and a system that is sustainable, future focused, fair and accessible to all. One in 13 Wentworth residents are currently enrolled in tertiary study, and around 70 per cent of our community hold a tertiary education—one of the highest rates in the country.

But we must ask ourselves whether the system is still delivering on the promise that higher education has long represented in Australia. For decades our tertiary system has opened doors. It has equipped generations of Australians with the skills to strengthen our economy, enrich our community and deepen our democracy. Yet for many young Australians today that promise feels increasingly fragile. Student debt is rising and opportunity can feel more distant. Around three million Australians carry student debt, with the average balance exceeding $27,000. In many disciplines, student contributions have risen sharply over time, leaving graduates with debts that can shape life choices for years, from where they live to whether they start a family or buy a home.

The student experience has also changed very significantly, particularly after COVID. I know that, having spoken to many students and families in my electorate, this is a real concern to students and their families—that the great experiences that many of us had in the 1990s and earlier in the 2000s are not being replicated by the current university system, and, particularly, that connection that so many of us got from our colleagues and classmates in universities is not being replicated in the current university sector.

These issues feed into, more broadly, issues in terms of productivity and social mobility. They go beyond just education. If we want a dynamic, innovative and cohesive society, we must ensure that learning and opportunity remains within reach, remains relevant and remains engaging for our young people. The universities accord was frank in its diagnosis. It found that tertiary policy had lacked clarity and long-term stewardship. I agree wholeheartedly.

Australia needs a more coherent and innovative tertiary system—one that allows students to move easily between vocational education and university and to have prior learning recognised, one that builds strong partnerships with industry to translate research into real-world outcomes, and one that partners very strongly with business and employers to make sure not just that our students are learning the foundation skills to enable them to think critically but also that they are equipped, when they join the workforce, with some practical skills and the skills that the business community and the wider community are saying are in demand. We want a system that harnesses emerging technologies to deliver excellence in teaching and learning, one that innovates to be the best in the world and one that supports Australians to upskill and reskill throughout their lives and recognises that a three-year degree is no longer a set-and-forget approach to education but that this is an ongoing dialogue. Finally, we want a system that delivers a rewarding and enriching experience for students, because students still need to be at the heart of our universities and in many cases students do not feel that, and the evidence bears this out.

Establishing an Australian Tertiary Education Commission is an important step towards that coherence and towards accountability. A national steward able to take a long-term view of the system can help ensure that policy is guided by evidence rather than by short-term pressures. But, for that promise to be realised, the design of the commission matters. If we do establish this commission, this has to lead to change. It has to lead to long-term, evidence based change. I do have some really significant concerns that the current design of the commission means that the ability to achieve the changes that Australians want is compromised.

Firstly, as to independence, the accord envisaged a body capable of providing robust, evidence based advice, yet, under this bill, the commission can generally only provide advice or publish reports when asked by the minister. It must also take into account ministerial priorities in performing its functions. If the commission is to identify emerging risks, warn when funding settings are failing and think deeply about the future of tertiary education, it really should have the ability and capacity to initiate work within its remit and publish its findings independently.

Secondly, as to resourcing, on paper the commission is independent, but in practice its staff will largely be drawn from the Department of Education. The danger is that, instead of building new capability, we risk rebadging existing resources and adding administration without actually adding capacity.

Finally, as to remit, the accord was highly critical of the Job-ready Graduates package and called for a more coherent and equitable student contribution system. Many expected ATEC to play a central role in that reform. If the commission is to provide meaningful advice on sustainability and fairness in higher education funding, it's got to go beyond just looking at the government funding for higher education and also consider the full picture, which includes the impact of student contributions and debt on access and opportunity. These are not simply minor design questions. They go to the heart of whether the commission can do the job it is being asked to do, which I do believe is important.

At the same time, the sector has waited a long time for clearer stewardship, and many accord reforms depend on having a body like this in place. I support the accord, and I support the principle of an ATEC. However, I support the amendments put forward by Kate Chaney, Monique Ryan and Julian Leeser. They strengthen this bill. They deal with many of the design flaws that I have highlighted in my speech. I think the government should look carefully at these amendments, and I think this is an example of where strengthening our democracy is strengthened by broadening participation in the contest of ideas. This bill could be strengthened. I believe this bill should be strengthened, because we do need a university system that opens doors, not closes them, and a system that fuels ambitions, not burden. We do need a system that ensures every Australian, regardless of background, can experience the transformative period of discovery, independence and learning that so many of us in the House remember so well. But we have a lot of work to do here, and we need this commission, if established, to be as strong and robust as possible. There is more work to be done on this bill.

See this speech in context