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

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (7) and (9) to (24), as circulated in my name, together:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 1), omit the table item, substitute:

(2) Clause 5, page 4 (line 5), omit "the", substitute "a".

(3) Clause 5, page 4 (line 8), omit "the", substitute "a".

(4) Clause 9, page 8 (line 10), omit paragraph (c), substitute:

(c) 3 Commissioners.

(5) Clause 11, page 8 (line 27), omit "if requested by the Minister".

(6) Clause 11, page 9 (after line 2), after paragraph (c), insert:

(ca) to prepare reports, and provide advice and recommendations to the Minister, the Research Minister and the Science Minister, in relation to research and research training in higher education system and its interactions with the broader research and development system;

(7) Clause 11, page 9 (line 4), omit "if requested by the Minister".

(9) Clause 11, page 9 (after line 14), after subparagraph (d)(ii), insert:

(iia) the funding of research and research training; and

(10) Clause 20, page 13 (lines 9 to 12), omit the clause, substitute:

20 Commissioner

There are to be 3 Commissioners.

(11) Heading to clause 21, page 13 (line 13), omit " the Commissioner ", substitute " a Commissioner ".

(12) Clause 22, page 14 (after line 11), at the end of the clause, add:

(4) The Secretary and the ATEC must enter into an enforceable agreement specifying minimum staffing levels and standards.

(13) Clause 41, page 27 (after line 17), after paragraph (d), insert:

(da) the funding of research and research training, including indirect costs of research grants and support for research students;

(14) Clause 41, page 28 (after line 25), at the end of the clause, add:

Work initiated by the ATEC

(4) Within the scope of the ATEC's work plan specified in section 45, the ATEC may initiate its own research and analysis and publish reports, advice and recommendations in relation to the items listed in subsections (1) and (2).

(15) Clause 42, page 29 (after line 18), after paragraph (d), insert:

(da) the contribution of higher education in progress towards any research, development, innovation or science priorities and targets set by the Commonwealth;

(16) Clause 42, page 30 (after line 12), at the end of the clause, add:

(6) To avoid doubt, a report is not prepared at the request of the Minister.

(17) Heading to clause 58, page 41 (line 1), omit " the Commissioner ", substitute " Commissioners ".

(18) Clause 58, page 41 (line 3), omit "The Commissioner", substitute "A Commissioner".

(19) Clause 58, page 41 (line 7), omit "the Commissioner", substitute "a Commissioner".

(20) Clause 58, page 41 (line 23), omit "The Commissioner", substitute "A Commissioner".

(21) Clause 59, page 42 (line 1), omit subparagraph (a)(i), substitute:

(i) higher education (including research and research training);

(22) Clause 61, page 44 (lines 2 to 11), omit the clause, substitute:

61 Remuneration

(1) An ATEC Commissioner is to be paid, by the Commonwealth, the remuneration that is determined by the Remuneration Tribunal. If no determination of that remuneration by the Tribunal is in operation, an ATEC Commissioner is to be paid, by the Commonwealth, the remuneration that is prescribed by the regulations.

(2) An ATEC Commissioner is to be paid, by the Commonwealth, the allowances that are prescribed by the regulations.

(3) Subsections 7(9) and (13) of the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973 do not apply in relation to the office of ATEC Commissioner.

Note: The effect of this subsection is that remuneration or allowances of an ATEC Commissioner will be paid out of money appropriated by an Act other than the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973 .

(4) This section has effect subject to the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973 (except as provided by subsection (3)).

(23) Heading to clause 69, page 47 (line 12), omit " Ministerial agreement ", substitute " Consultation with Minister ".

(24) Clause 69, page 47 (lines 15 and 16), omit "seek and obtain the agreement of the Minister", substitute "consult with the Minister".

Having consulted with universities and considered the 62 submissions to the committee inquiry, I've drafted these amendments to achieve three key outcomes.

The first outcome would be to provide ATEC with autonomy and independence, as recommended by the Australian Universities Accord—final report and a wide range of stakeholders. 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, which is how it's currently drafted. Without this independence and autonomy, ATEC won't be able to provide long-term well-evidenced policy advice. Much of the most important policy reforms may not be politically palatable, like reforming the failed job-ready graduates scheme. Without this independence and autonomy, ATEC will not have the opportunity to regularly advise on these issues. As drafted, it appears that ATEC will effectively be an extension of the department, providing advice on the request of the minister. ATEC only has one opportunity a year to provide advice that's not requested by the minister, in the State of the tertiary education system report, and that's not enough. My amendments would allow ATEC to initiate its own research and advisory functions, allow ATEC to publish reports with ministerial consultation, rather than ministerial agreement, and clarify that the State of the tertiary education system report can be prepared and published without the request of the minister. Further, ATEC should have some level of control and certainty over staffing arrangements. As drafted, staffing would be almost exclusively controlled by the department. This means that the department could, if it so wished, limit ATEC staff and effectively drain it of resources. One of these amendments would require ATEC and the department to enter into an enforceable agreement that would specify minimum staffing levels and standards, providing a level of certainty to ATEC.

The second outcome I'm trying to achieve with my amendments is to increase the number of commissioners. As drafted, there's significant concern that three commissioners will be insufficient to provide expertise across a diverse range of fields and areas, such as higher education, VET, tertiary education governance and administration, stakeholder consultation and engagement, regional Australia, research and research training, equity and access, and learning and teaching. The universities accord final report, for example, recommended seven commissioners. My amendments would increase the number of commissioners from three to five, remedying this issue.

The third intended outcome of these amendments is to make explicit the role of ATEC as a steward of the research sector. This, too, was recommended by the final report of the universities accord and a number of key stakeholders. Research is essential to Australia's long-term productivity, economic strength and international competitiveness, and the higher education sector plays a major role in Australia's research output. My amendments would allow ATEC to prepare reports and advice in relation to research and research training and ensure that the commissioners collectively possess experience in research and research training.

I'll also be supporting an amendment to be moved by the member for Kooyong in relation to student contributions. One of ATEC's functions is to provide advice on the efficient cost and value of higher education courses and programs. However, as drafted, ATEC could only consider Commonwealth contributions, not student contributions. In other words, when assessing how much courses cost, ATEC wouldn't even consider how much students are paying. Both Commonwealth and student contributions must be considered in analysing the cost, value and efficiency of higher education courses and programs, and the member for Kooyong's amendment will ensure student contributions will be considered as well.

I understand from the government that it will not support these amendments because it doesn't want to pre-empt the outcomes of a committee inquiry. We in the House also do not want to pre-empt the inquiry, but, unfortunately, the government gives us no choice, as it would prefer to push the bill through the House before the committee reports. While I do not believe this bill should pass as drafted, I think there's an opportunity to introduce amendments to build an impactful and effective ATEC. I want to acknowledge the genuine engagement of the minister with my office and with the sector more broadly and his passion for implementing the universities accord and building a flourishing higher education sector. I thank the minister for his comments in the House and for saying that he'll consider my amendments alongside the Senate inquiry report. I will not divide the House on these amendments. If the bill comes back to the House in an improved form in line with the accord recommendations and taking these amendments into account, I'll reconsider supporting it at that stage. I commend these amendments to the House.

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Curtin for her engagement on this bill and for her amendments. I acknowledge, like she has generously done, her sincere interest in this area of public policy and particularly her desire to make sure that this commission that we're seeking to establish, the ATEC, is strong and independent and has the scope and capacity to do this important work. I share that intent. Therefore, I give you the undertaking publicly, as I did in my concluding remarks in the debate and as I've said privately, that I'll consider these amendments alongside the Senate report. We're expecting to receive that report on 27 February or thereabouts, and there's a Senate hearing that will take place later this week, which will provide an opportunity for many of the people that you've mentioned to provide evidence. I do sincerely look forward to seeing that report as well. Therefore, as I've said, the government is not in a position now to support these amendments, but I do look forward to working closely with you and with other members as debate proceeds in the Senate.

Question negatived.

Julian Leeser (Berowra, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move the opposition amendment:

(1)    Clause 13, page 10 (lines 19 to 23), omit subclause (1), substitute:

(1) The National Tertiary Education Objective is the objective for tertiary education in Australia to:

(a) develop a world-class tertiary education sector that drives excellence in teaching and learning; and

(b) deliver world-leading research and scholarship, particularly in strategic areas of national significance; and

(c) improve productivity by developing a highly skilled, adaptable and productive workforce; and

(d) establish close links between tertiary education providers, industry and business to strengthen student outcomes and support innovation across the economy; and

(e) deliver positive student experiences across the tertiary education sector; and

(f) promote competition and innovation across the tertiary education sector; and

(g) support Australian values, including equality of opportunity, the rule of law, and Western liberal democratic traditions; and

(h) drive efficiency across the sector to provide value for money for students and the Australian taxpayer; and

(i) reduce regulatory burdens on the tertiary education sector where practicable.

As I said in my contribution to the second reading debate, if we're going to have a legislated objective for tertiary education in Australia, it can't be the version that's currently in the legislation. It's worth revisiting what that objective actually does, because it has to be said that it will be an iron rod that gives guidance to the new regulator. What does the objective say? The legislation says this:

(1) The National Tertiary Education Objective is the objective for tertiary education in Australia to:

(a) promote a strong, equitable and resilient democracy; and

(b) drive national, economic and social development and environmental sustainability.

Then, if that weren't clear enough, the legislation goes on to say:

(2) In performing functions or exercising powers, the ATEC and the ATEC Commissioners must have regard to the National Tertiary Education Objective.

It's explicit. This is a requirement of this new legislation. It guarantees that, in circumstances where it would otherwise be irrelevant, the ATEC must be thinking about social development—whatever that means—and environmental sustainability.

Let me just digress for a minute to explain why this is the case. As the minister knows and as I know and as everyone else in this place knows, it's a basic principle of administrative law that, in making a decision, a body like ATEC must have regard to relevant considerations and must not have regard to irrelevant considerations. Failing to do this means your decision is liable to be overturned on judicial review. If you're a regulator making the decision, it's a matter that's relevant. You must take it into account. And, if it's not relevant, you must not take it into account. That's common sense, and it's also the current law.

So when you pass a provision like section 13 as it's currently drafted, you make sure that deeply political but otherwise irrelevant considerations like social development and environmental sustainability must affect every decision ATEC makes. You're opening yourself up to every green lawfare activist who wants to challenge a decision about a provider in the courts because it doesn't adequately deal with climate change or the latest progressive social trend. You can imagine how, when ATEC goes to enter into a mission based compact with the University of Sydney or University of Melbourne, an issue motivated protest group might be interested in challenging you. Well, this objective is their green light. It guarantees that those considerations will be taken into account where they are otherwise irrelevant, and it makes it just that little bit easier to challenge an ATEC decision on activist grounds.

That, in and of itself, is bad enough. Worse than that, I think the objective misses the obvious. It fails to set things that are and should be relevant to decisions about tertiary education in this country—things like teaching, learning, research, scholarship, productivity, positive student experiences, competition and innovation across the sector, Australian values, efficiency, value for money both for the taxpayer and the student, and the reduction of regulatory burdens. Those are the things that the regulator should be taking into account when making every decision about our tertiary sector. Those are the things that you'd expect and hope to see.

As I said before, it's not just me saying this, and it's not just the Liberal Party. Even bodies like the NTEU—no great ally of the Liberal Party—have said this. They say:

The NTEU believes that this objective does not adequately address the character, nature and purpose of higher education; it makes no reference, for example, to the importance of critical inquiry, academic discovery and discourse, institutional independence or even to academic freedom. Instead, the objectives seek to define tertiary education as part of broader Government policy and could apply to virtually any sector.

It's very strange when the coalition and the NTEU find agreement on something, but when they do, I think it should be a red flag that says, 'Perhaps the objective is not right as it is.'

It's not an excuse to say that this objective was the recommendation of the Universities Accord. That shouldn't bind governments. It's for governments to consider the recommendation, to weigh up the justifications, pros, cons and implications. In deciding to write it into legislation, this is an active policy decision by the government. Once it's in the legislation, it's there; they own it.

As I've said, the national tertiary education objective, as drafted, is not fit to proceed. Amending it should be a necessary but not sufficient consideration for legislating anything like an ATEC. So this amendment changes it. It's a simple and straightforward amendment, and I'd like to think it's uncontroversial. It says that the objective of tertiary education in Australia is exactly what you'd expect it to be: teaching, learning, research, scholarship, productivity, positive student experiences, competition, innovation, efficiency, value for money and support for Australian values. I want to acknowledge the contribution of the member for Wentworth, who has improved this by the addition of what now reads as paragraph (d) in the amendment that we've put forward, and I thank her for the contribution that she's made.

If the government does not support this amendment, they'll be sending a very clear message. They'll be prioritising misplaced pride over substance. They'll be voting against teaching, against learning, against research and against support for Australian values. (Extension of time granted, on the motion of Mr Leeser) Instead, what we would like to see them do is support the amendment. I noted in the minister's comments that he wasn't going to support the amendments of the crossbench, but perhaps he will support the very fine amendment here proposed by the opposition with the assistance of the member for Wentworth. We want to see a national tertiary education objective, if it is to be legislated, that Australians would readily recognise as being an appropriate national tertiary education objective, and that's what this amendment is designed to do. I commend the amendment to the House.

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

I support the amendment put forward by the member for Berowra in relation to the Universities Accord (Australian Tertiary Education Commission) Bill 2025. I think the point that the member just made is a fair one. The objectives of the body should reflect what ordinary people see as the role of universities. I think they are pretty well reflected in ways that I think most people would understand. I think that is appropriate. I don't think it's in conflict with anything that the government is seeking to achieve, but I think it is adding to it in a useful and constructive way.

A point that I added—and I'm grateful to the member for being open to the addition—was particularly around the linkages between business and industry and universities. I think that this is a part of the tertiary sector more broadly that can be much, much better. I am thinking particularly of two aspects of that. One is better preparing our young people for work by driving that connection between business and universities and the working world—not just business but also the non-market sector—because when our students go into the world of work, which is increasingly competitive and where we are seeing young people struggling to get on that first rung on the ladder, we need to do the best we possibly can so that they are well prepared. That, I think, supports that connection.

The other part of deepening those connections that I think is really critical is ensuring that the wonderful research of our tertiary institutions, which is in many cases is absolutely world-leading, is then translated into productivity and innovation outcomes in industry and the wider economy. Again, I think seeing how other countries in the world do this and doing this much more effectively are ways that this can be strengthened, and I think those should be clearer objectives of the sector to really drive those connections.

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm sorry to disappoint the member for Berowra and the member for Wentworth, two individuals in this chamber that I hold in very high regard. I thank you for your thoughtful contributions in this debate. The national tertiary education objectives in the bill were recommended, as the shadow minister pointed out, by the Universities Accord Panel. It's actually recommendation 1 of the accord—to set a clear vision for the tertiary education system. It's an objective for the whole system and the role that it must play to support Australia's resilience, fairness and prosperity. The changes proposed in this amendment appear to set an objective for the ATEC itself rather than for the system, and the government is not in a position to support this amendment.

Mike Freelander (Macarthur, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendment be agreed to. A division is required. In accordance with standing order 133, the division is deferred until the first opportunity on the next sitting day. The debate on this item is therefore adjourned until that time.

Monique Ryan (Kooyong, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move amendment (1) as circulated in my name:

(1) Clause 11, page 9 (line 13), after "Commonwealth", insert "and student".

This amendment to the Universities Accord (Australian Tertiary Education Commission) Bill 2025 is about one thing: it's about ensuring fairness for students in our higher education system. Today, for many young Australians, university education has become a narrow and expensive pathway. Students are being burdened with rising fees, growing debts and a funding structure that fails to reflect the realities that they face. My amendment takes steps towards recognising those issues.

The government says that it wants a tertiary education commission able to drive long-term reform, but the bill before the House creates a commission that cannot speak for or investigate the plight of students unless it's politically convenient to the government of the day. Under this bill, the commission is empowered to examine what the Commonwealth contributes to higher education, but it's prevented from looking at what students themselves are charged. It's extraordinary that the government has drafted a bill that gives the future steward of Australia's tertiary education sector the power to review and advise on what comes out of the Commonwealth purse but pays no mind to the financial burden on students.

The government's omission is not accidental; it's deliberate. That omission significantly weakens the commission's ability to provide the honest and robust advice that the government needs to hear. Many submissions on this bill from higher education experts and from within the university sector have raised the alarm that the legislation fails in this respect. I know that the minister has heard these calls, but he continues to ignore them.

After years of expensive university degrees, it's irresponsible, in my view, to legislate a new national steward that is deliberately blind to the significant policy failure of the job-ready graduates scheme. The reality is that, because of this scheme, students are paying more than $17,000 a year for studies in disciplines like arts, the law and business. That's over $50,000 for a basic three-year degree and upwards of $80,000 for combined programs like arts/law. This is a pricing system with no coherent policy background or logic. It's neither fair nor efficient. It is simply punitive.

The universities accord reported that student contributions need to be fixed urgently. That was in 2024. We're now in 2026, and nothing has changed. In fact, the maximum student contributions for cluster 1 degrees, including law, accounting, economics and business are almost seven per cent higher in 2026 than they were in 2024. If the government were to tackle this issue today, it could consider reforming section 93.10 of the Higher Education Support Act 2003—this division sets the maximum student contribution price per place for disciplines as well as their indexation under the act—but the government has declined to consider this simple reform for over two years. All we have now before us is an act to establish a commission that cannot address this issue.

My amendment to this legislation is a simple one. It's only two words—two words which mean a huge amount to the students whose lives it would transform. The amendment seeks to remedy the ongoing and worsening burden of student debt by expanding the commission's remit to consider student contributions—two words. The sector wants it, Australian students deserve it, and our parliament should insist upon it.

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have two words for the member for Kooyong: thank you. Thank you for your engagement on this bill and your sincere and genuine commitment to this area of public policy. Thank you for bringing this amendment forward. Thank you for the work that you have done in this area for as long as you've been a member of parliament. As you were speaking, I was reflecting on the campaign that you led and the work that you did around the changes to indexation for HECS. That helped to create the environment for the reform that we passed through this parliament a couple of years ago now that lowered student debt by about $3 billion and helped to address the unfairness that existed with the way in which inflation interacted with student debt. So thank you. Thank you for the work that you led there.

And thank you for this amendment. As I've said to you in private conversations—and I'm very happy to say in the chamber here today—I will consider this amendment in the context of the debate, which we will have in the Senate once we've seen the report of the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee. Their inquiry is up and running right now. This is one of those areas where I'm expecting them to present recommendations to us, amongst a range of others, including perhaps some of the areas that the member for Curtin flagged in her amendments. They've got their public hearing on Friday, and we're expecting their report before parliament returns in March. And therefore, whilst I'm not in a position to insert those two words into the bill as we debate it here in the House of Representatives, I do look forward to continuing to work with the member for Kooyong as that debate occurs in the Senate next month.

I indicate that the government will not support this amendment that is about to be put.

Question negatived.

Debate adjourned.