Alison Penfold (Lyne, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Universities Accord (Australian Tertiary Education Commission) Bill 2025. I appreciate that legislating to establish an Australian tertiary education commission is a recommendation of the report stemming from the review of Australia's higher education sector. Such recommendations must be seriously considered and are not easily dismissed. Stewardship in and of the university sector is more critical than ever at present. Rising antisemitism on campuses across the country, the challenge of AI on academic oversight and student learning and assessment, changing enrolment patterns and the alignment of courses to business needs are just some of the challenges the sector faces.

This bill seeks to establish an ATEC with the following objectives: to promote a strong, equitable and resilient democracy and to drive national economic and social development and environmental sustainability. How this objective can even go close to fixing the serious problems in the tertiary sector is, frankly, beyond me. This bill is about a solution looking for a problem—and it's a costly solution, at a time when the government should be looking for prudence in expenditure, not a bureaucratic pool party on taxpayers.

I'm one of the few Australians who've been fortunate to receive a university education. The last census shows that just under a quarter of Australians have had a tertiary education. I'm only the second in my family to attend university. The first was my late aunt, as a mature age student pursuing a fine arts degree at Macquarie University, for which she received a university medal. I myself am a graduate of the Australian National University, with a degree in Korean language. I'm grateful for my education and proud to have attended the ANU and Burgmann College for three of the four years of my degree. During it, I was privileged to receive an Australian government Asian languages scholarship to study in South Korea, which I did for a year at Sogang University.

I say all this to demonstrate that I am a supporter of tertiary education and a beneficiary of it—of its role in the development of our national intellectual capital, innovation and cultural growth. But I cannot support these bills. I cannot support such a vague objective being institutionalised and bureaucratised in Australia.

I take issue with the proposal on a number of levels. Firstly, it will add another layer of education bureaucracy at significant cost, which will not take our universities forward. Here we have yet another attempt by this Labor government to shift responsibility and, in turn, accountability to yet another bureaucratic, expensive, red-tape-laden authority, which I seriously doubt is being done according to the will of Australians. Whenever I talk to constituents, not one has ever voiced to me their desire to see the creation and maintenance of additional bureaucratic layers at the taxpayer's expense. Furthermore, ATEC will be assisted by the Department of Education—as if that department doesn't already have enough on its plate.

Secondly, the bills omit certain components of the ATEC recommendations by the accord report. As I noted earlier, despite my concerns I acknowledge that the establishment of ATEC is a recommendation of the Australian Universities Accord review and report. The minister has himself championed the recommendations of the report, yet he has chosen not to champion all the recommendations in it. Recommendation 30g says:

The Australian Tertiary Education Commission should be governed by a Board comprising the Chief Commissioner as Chair, 2 Deputy Commissioners, the TEQSA Chief Commissioner, the ARC Board Chair, a First Nations Commissioner, an Equity Commissioner and the Regional Education Commissioner.

It was recommended that a regional education commissioner be created to reflect the goals and aspirations of regional students and regional tertiary education. Instead, in these bills, Labor has ignored that recommendation and is not going to appoint a commissioner to represent regional interests but, instead, will appoint one based on ethnicity, so that, among three commissioners, one must be a First Nations commissioner.

In a MPI debate last week, the Minister for Emergency Management, responding on behalf of the government, repeatedly argued that the Albanese government is a better friend to regional Australia than the National Party, that the Albanese government prioritises outcomes for regional Australia. These bills prove exactly the opposite. The Albanese government's apparent deep regard and commitment to the interests of regional Australia is noticeably absent in this legislation, which deliberately rejects the universities accord report and recommendation to establish a regional education commissioner to represent regional and rural students in educational institutions. Such an omission is an undeniable affront to regional Australia. There is a regional education commissioner, originally appointed under a coalition government, and one that we are grateful the current government has continued to support. But why ignore this recommendation? There's no explanation, and it's an odd omission. Do the government not value the views and perspectives of the regional tertiary education sector? Do they not want ATEC to consider the particular challenges of delivering tertiary education in the country?

It goes further. The bills have been referred to the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee, which is not due to report until 26 February 2026. A number of regional university stakeholders, however, have already raised, in their submissions, various issues with these bills. Regional development bodies and regional universities, though supportive of the bills' recognition of the need for change in the university sector, argue that this recognition of regional Australia is not matched by the bills. Submissions note there is no legislative mandated regional expertise among ATEC commissioners, no distinct regional advisory committee and a reliance on general stakeholder consultation processes that could give metropolitan institutions agenda-setting power.

Regional universities and regional development bodies were broadly supportive of managed growth and mission based compacts in principle. However, some issues were raised around ATEC's powers to suspend mission based compacts and ministerial influence. Regional stakeholders expressed a need for safeguards to avoid standard compacts embedding metropolitan priorities. Concerns were raised that managed growth and equity weighted funding could incentivise metropolitan universities to ramp up recruitment of regional and equity students, hollowing out the enrolment base and financial viability of regional tertiary education providers, and also hurting the workforces needed to sustain these regional communities. Submissions also stress that the bill underplays regional research and innovation, regional infrastructure and the realities of tertiary education delivery, which often happens across state jurisdictions.

There is also broad agreement that ATEC must play a stronger role in VET higher education alignment, with submissions warning that TAFEs risk being marginalised unless their role is explicitly embedded in ATEC's design and operations, including on credit transfer, curriculum alignment and workforce development.

In yet another injudicious use of Australians' taxpayer dollars, Labor has committed $54 million over 10 years to support ATEC's establishment and operations, and yet, when I applied to the Minister for Education to allocate just $100,000 towards the Taree Universities Campus to help them rebuild and refurbish their study hub after it was smashed and devastated by the May 2025 floods, I was told that the department did not have any funds and, therefore, could not and would not assist. The Taree Universities Campus is part of the Regional University Study Hubs initiative. It was established in 2020 as a community led initiative to help students across the Manning and Great Lakes areas undertake higher education without having to leave their communities. I want to take this moment to acknowledge the work of the former member for Lyne, the Hon. Dr David Gillespie, in leading this initiative.

In May 2025, the Taree Universities Campus was inundated with floodwaters, with the lower levels of the building submerged, causing extensive internal and external damage, including mud deposits, and rendering the campus's elevator inoperable. With a huge community effort, a temporary study space was opened on level 2 of the building, pending continuing efforts to refit and reinstate level 1. However, despite these attempts to overcome the flood's impact and get the campus back to normal operating conditions and capability, the number of students using the facility has fallen down from something like 400 per week to around 100 per week because of the impact on the facilities. Because of its location, TUC was not able to acquire insurance against floods. The resources and funds of MidCoast Council are near exhausted, and the community is dispirited and suffering from flood fatigue. TUC simply requires one-off, special funding of $100,000 to enable the refit and refurbishment to get it back on its feet and provide the wonderful services that it has done for several years now. This government cannot spare $100,000, a drop in the ocean in the scheme of Labor's spending, to help an invaluable community education facility rebuild following a catastrophic flood, but they can spend $54 million on another questionable layer of bureaucracy.

This bill also fails to address one of the sector's leading preoccupations, funding for Commonwealth supported places. The Taree Universities Campus was established in cohort 2 of the Regional University Study Hubs program. There have been five cohorts of study hubs announced under the program. Those in cohorts 1 and 2 receive CSPs as the funding stream. Later streams receive direct grant funding. TUC greatly values and supports the CSP model as a funding stream for two reasons. It provides a diversification of income streams and flexibility in how funds can be applied to locally designed programs that support current and future students. Unlike tied grant funding, CSP derived income is not restricted to specific deliverables, allowing TUC to respond directly to regional community and industry needs. CSPs also strengthen value proposition and deepen partnerships with universities.

In summary, CSPs are far more valuable than their direct monetary contributions alone. Specifically, CSPs are leveraged by TUC and its university partners, particularly when combined with student contributions. Funds returned to TUC are untied, enabling locally relevant programs and student support models. CSPs function as TUC's primary bargaining tool with universities and form the basis of partnerships. CSPs are the language of universities and having them allows TUC to engage as a credible partner. CSPs open doors to new partnerships, offering and delivering benefits well beyond the original allocation. CSPs underpin TUC's independence and long-term financial sustainability.

Importantly, under the current 2023-27 funding agreement, the department sets clear expectations that regional university study hubs will engage in widening participation activities and assist in addressing regional skills shortages. However, the agreement also specifies that departmental funding is limited to student support only and that these broader activities must be funded from other sources. CSPs are, in practice, the key funding mechanism that enables TUC to meet these expanded expectations. TUC currently receives 32 CSPs per annum, a modest allocation by any measure. These CSPs are distributed proportionally across the university partners that TUC has, based on student numbers, the majority whom are enrolled with Charles Sturt University.

I understand that the department is seeking to standardise the way it funds regional university study hubs with a view to remove CSPs from cohorts 1 and 2. Any move to remove CSPs from existing hubs appears to be driven by a desire for uniformity and administrative convenience, rather than by consideration of the educational, economic and community outcomes enabled by a more diverse funding model. If the government is set on addressing inequalities and achieving equitable access, participation and success in the higher education system, it should be examining Commonwealth supported places. The government should be ensuring that the CSP model as a funding stream for TUC is retained and that it is provided with an additional 10 CSPs to support growth in demand for its services and to build and expand its relation with at least another three university partners.

In conclusion, I'm a strong supporter of education because it is a slingshot to the future that individuals choose. University education plays a strong role in this. The Taree Universities Campus has been a game changer in my electorate, particularly for Manning and Great Lakes residents, providing opportunities for locals to pursue careers at home in their community. My electorate does not host a university and most of my electorate, 85 per cent in fact, have never had a university education.

So when a bill of this nature, with a $54 million vague mandate and a deliberate disregard for regional Australia, is put before us as the people's representatives—at a time when so many of my constituents are having to make tough decisions about how to manage their budgets, put food on their table and pay for essentials—I cannot possibly support this bill. Reform of the university sector is needed, but not in this way.

See this speech in context