I understand that it is the wish of the Federation Chamber to debate this order of the day concurrently with the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment (National Student Ombudsman Levy) Bill 2026. There being no objection, the Chair will allow that course to be followed.

These bills are technically informed, but the policy question behind them is simple: when a student has a serious problem with their university or higher education provider, where do they go if the provider's own complaints process does not work? For too long, the answer was often, 'Nowhere particularly useful.' Students could find themselves dealing with internal processes that were slow, confusing, inconsistent or simply not equipped to deal properly with the complaint before them. Where the complaint involves something serious, including gender based violence, poor complaint handling did not just create frustration—it could compound the harm. That is why the National Student Ombudsman was established. It commenced operations on 1 February 2025, and it gives all higher education students access to a free, independent and trauma informed service where they can escalate complaints about their provider. It was established in response to recommendation 18(b) of the Australian Universities Accord. It also forms part of the action plan addressing gender based violence in higher education, agreed by all Australian education ministers in February 2024.

The Ombudsman exists because students needed somewhere independent to go, somewhere outside the institution, somewhere that is not marking the assignment, deciding their progression or controlling access to their services. An independent umpire matters most when one side already controls the ground, the scoreboard and the changerooms, and the early demand for the service tells us the need was real. As of 31 August 2026, the National Student Ombudsman had received 7,690 student contacts. It had resolved 6,016 of those contacts. That is 78 per cent of all contacts received since it commenced operations, and 93 per cent of complaints have been resolved through the informal dispute resolution processes. That is significant because the objective here is not to create another bureaucracy that creates lengthy correspondence explaining why everyone remains unhappy. The objective is to solve problems, and the evidence so far is that the ombudsman is doing exactly that. It is helping students reach practical outcomes and it is doing that while maintaining constructive relationships between students and providers.

It is doing something else that is just as important—it is improving the system. The National Student Ombudsman does not only deal with one complaint at a time; it identifies systematic problems, it gives advice on best practice complaints handling, it provides education and guidance to providers, it helps institutions improve their governance, and it gives sector insight into where policies and processes are failing students. Eighty per cent of higher education providers surveyed by the National Student Ombudsman say they are implementing systems or service improvements following the ombudsman's complaints handling and education engagements, and that is a pretty strong indication that this service is not just valuable to students—it is valuable to the providers as well. Better complaints handling means problems can be addressed earlier. It means institutions can learn from failures. It means stronger governance and, ideally, it means fewer students needing to escalate a complaint in the first place.

The policy question before the House is not whether the National Student Ombudsman should continue—it should—the question is how its ongoing operations should be funded, and that is what these bills address. The National Student Ombudsman Levy Bill 2026 establishes the legislative framework for a levy on higher education providers. The purpose of that levy is to recover the costs of administering the National Student Ombudsman. Subject to the passage of this legislation, the levy will commence from 1 January 2027.

The Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment (National Student Ombudsman Levy) Bill 2026 then provides the collection arrangements associated with that levy. Payment of the levy and any applicable penalty for late payment will be made a condition of registration. In other words, one bill establishes the levy; the other makes sure the levy can be collected. A framework without collection arrangements would be like establishing a parking fine and then deciding not to bother with the payment. Parliament does occasionally enjoy complexity, but thankfully not quite that much!

Importantly, the method for calculating the amount of the levy will not be hardwired into the primary legislation. That detail will be set through regulations or guidelines following further consultation with the sector, and that is appropriate. Different providers are different sizes. They operate in different markets. They have different student populations. The detailed design needs to be informed by consultation and to be capable of adjustment. What the parliament is establishing here is the framework, and the principle is clear. The levy is intended to recover the operating costs of the National Student Ombudsman. It is not intended to generate additional revenue, and it will cover those costs in arrears.

The government is providing $44.3 million over four years from 2020-27 to underwrite the ombudsman's annual operating costs. Those costs will then be recovered from higher education providers through the levy, paid annually in arrears. That distinction matters. This is cost recovery, not a revenue stream. There is another distinction that matters even more: students will not pay to use the National Student Ombudsman. Access will remain free, and that is fundamental to the design, because there would be something deeply perverse about creating an independent complaints body for students and then putting a price on the door. Imagine telling a student who believes they've been treated unfairly, 'Yes, there's an independent body that can help you, but first please enter your credit card details.' That would defeat much of the purpose.

A complaints mechanism is meaningful only if students can actually access it. So the cost sits with the higher education sector, not with the student trying to resolve the complaint. That is appropriate, because providers benefit from the ombudsman's work, too. They receive guidance. They receive insight into systemic issues. They improve complaints handling. They improve services. They benefit from greater confidence in the higher education system.

The government made the sector aware of its intention to recover the ongoing costs of the National Student Ombudsman in March 2024. During the establishment phase, the Commonwealth has carried those costs. We are now moving to a sustainable cost-recovery model, and that is the practical purpose of these bills. But it's also important to understand where this legislation sits within the broader reform of tertiary education. In February 2024 the government released the final report of the Australian Universities Accord. The accord is a blueprint for reform over the next decade and the decade after that. Its central challenge is a big one. Over the coming decades, around 80 per cent of people in the workforce will need a certificate, diploma or degree. That means Australia will need more people at TAFE, more people at university, more people gaining skills throughout their working life.

This is not simply an education policy. It is a workforce policy. It is a productivity policy. If Australia needs more nurses, teachers, engineers, electricians, health professionals, technicians and skilled workers then our tertiary education system has to be capable of training them. And if we need more Australians to enter tertiary education, the system has to work for the people who use it. It has to be accessible, it has to be affordable, it has to be safe and it has to be accountable.

That is why the government has already implemented more than 30 of the accord's 47 recommendations either in full or in part. We've made HECS fairer. We have cut HECS by 20 per cent. We've capped indexation at the lower of the CPI and the WPI. We have moved to a marginal repayment system, and we have increased the minimum repayment threshold. Those changes matter because student debt should not operate as an unnecessary barrier to participation.

We've introduced paid prac for the first time, and that now supports students in teaching, nursing, midwifery, social work, clinical psychology, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, speech pathology, paramedicine, radiography, pharmacy, rehabilitation therapies, audiology and podiatry. Anyone who has undertaken compulsory placement knows the practical problem. You can be required to work a significant number of hours in a placement while also somehow paying rent, buying groceries and keeping the lights on. Apparently, the traditional policy response was to hope students had discovered the secret fourth job somewhere between lectures and sleep. Paid prac is a recognition that compulsory training should not force students out of their course because they cannot afford to complete it.

We're also doubling the number of university study hubs. That includes 20 new regional university study hubs and 14 new suburban university study hubs. We are increasing the number of free university bridging courses. We've made demand driven Commonwealth supported places available to First Nations students who achieve the marks required for entry. We have established the Australian Tertiary Education Commission as a steward for the tertiary education system, and we have established both the National Student Ombudsman and the national code to prevent and respond to gender based violence.

These reforms are connected. The objective is not simply to get more Australians through the front door of a university or TAFE. The objective is to build a tertiary education system that supports people once they are inside, because participation is not just about admission; it is about whether students can afford to continue, whether they can complete compulsory placement, whether they can access support, whether they are safe and whether there is somewhere effective to turn to when something goes wrong.

The last point is what these bills are about. The National Student Ombudsman gives students an avenue beyond their provider's internal processes, it gives students confidence that a complaint can be heard independently, it helps providers improve their own systems, it identifies problems that extend beyond one institution or one student and it supports continuous improvement across the sector.

There is a broader public interest in that work. Australia asks students to make a significant investment in tertiary education. Students invest years of their lives. They often take on debt. They make choices about employment, family and where they live. In return, they are entitled to expect institutions to have proper processes when something goes wrong. When those processes fail, there should be meaningful external scrutiny.

That is not hostile to universities. Good institutions should welcome accountability. If a provider has strong systems, fair complaints procedures and a culture that responds properly to problems, an independent ombudsman is not a threat; it is another mechanism that supports confidence in the system.

The experience of the first period of operation supports that conclusion. Thousands of students have already contacted the ombudsman. Thousands of contacts have already been resolved. Providers themselves are making improvements as a result of the ombudsman's work. And that is precisely what an effective complaints body should produce: not an endless process for the sake of process, but better outcomes for individuals and better systems for everybody else.

These bills ensure that that work can continue on a sustainable footing from 1 January 2027. They establish a clear legislative framework for cost recovery, they provide for the collection of the levy, they allow the detailed methodology to be developed following further consultation with the sector, they ensure the levy recovers operating costs rather than becoming a revenue-raising measure and, critically, they ensure that students continue to access the National Student Ombudsman free of charge.

There is a fairly straightforward principle at the heart of this legislation: if we want more Australians to pursue tertiary education, we also have to build a system worthy of their confidence. That means affordable study, better access, support during training and placement, safe campuses and institutions, and accountability when things go wrong. The National Student Ombudsman is now an important part of that system. These bills give it a sustainable funding base, while keeping access free for students. That is fair, that is practical and it strengthens the confidence in Australian higher education. I commend these bills to the House.

It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak to the National Student Ombudsman Levy Bill. Establishment of this position has been one of the most significant contributions of this government to keeping students safe on campuses. It began in August 2023, when representatives of the STOP campaign Australia launched the #IDeserveSafety initiative at Parliament House. They collected thousands of student testimonies from across the country, submitting them to the universities accord. They demanded systemic reform. At that stage, 275 students were being assaulted in university settings every week. Amongst the key demands of that campaign was the creation of an independent oversight mechanism to hold institutions accountable for their handling of gender based violence. I and my crossbench colleagues amplified this call, and I'd like to give a shout-out especially to Zoe Daniel, the former member for Goldstein, and Kylea Tink, the last MP for the now-abolished seat of North Sydney, for their strong and effective leadership on this issue at that time.

Together, we helped to get those student representatives in front of the education minister, who was kind enough to see them the same day we met with them. We talked in the House and in the media about how things had to change. The minister and the universities accord listened. The accord found that students needed a simpler and more accessible way to pursue complaints, with proper support. It recommended an independent student complaints mechanism for higher education students. Three years later, we've come a long way. We helped to pass landmark legislation reshaping how universities respond to sexual violence. We now have a Student Ombudsman and a national code that will oversee all higher education providers, requiring evidence based prevention strategies and best-practice support for victims-survivors. These are achievements three years in the making. Together, those students, their supporters, the crossbench, the other parliamentarians who supported them, the minister and the government have made our campuses more safe for the next generation of students.

On 1 February 2025, the National Student Ombudsman formally commenced, supported by $19.4 million over the two years for 2024-25 budget. The ombudsman in now in place, working to resolve student complaints about higher education providers, providing a free and independent service available to all higher education students, regardless of the university at which they study.

Since opening its doors 18 months ago, the National Student Ombudsman has supported students through complaints of gender based violence, antisemitism, Islamophobia and other forms of racism or discrimination on campus. It's become a critical piece of infrastructure for the wellbeing, safety and experience of students at a time when we're seeing significant challenges across the university sector.

The ombudsman is already demonstrating its value. As of 31 August 2026, the National Student Ombudsman had received 7,690 student contacts. It had resolved 6,016 of those matters—78 per cent. That means that thousands of students have already been able to access an independent avenue to have their concerns heard and, where possible, resolved. This is a profound legacy of this place and one which I'm truly proud to have been involved with.

However, the Minister for Education has notified higher education providers that the sector is going to have to contribute to the ongoing costs of the ombudsman. This package of bills delivers on that expectation, providing for the imposition, collection and administration of a new levy on higher education providers to recover the costs of administering the ombudsman. A failure to pay will amount to a breach of a condition of registration for those universities and other institutions. It may result in enforcement action, which would be undertaken by the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency.

The legislation provides for the minister for education to make rules to facilitate the collection and administration of the student ombudsman levy, but much of the detail beyond that is not in the legislation. The missing details include how the levy formulation will be calculated and how it will be distributed across those higher education providers. Those parameters are going to be left to ministerial delegated legislation. The explanatory memorandum for the bill argues that this approach is necessary to provide flexibility to ensure that levy arrangements can be appropriately adjusted over time to reflect both the costs of the National Student Ombudsman's functions and the exercise of its powers.

I do understand the appeal and the need for flexibility, but it has to be balanced with the requirement of transparency. The government has previously stated that the levy will be distributed across providers based on their student population. The government has previously reasoned publicly that the overall student population is a core cost driver for the Student Ombudsman, but neither the bill nor the explanatory memorandum confirm this approach. Universities Australia has challenged this. It has claimed that there's little evidence for a relationship between a provider's equivalent full-time student load and the actual demand placed on the ombudsman service.

Headcount might be a more appropriate measure of the need for the services of the ombudsman, but other factors should probably be considered. For example, rural students have greater need for pastoral support, given their isolation and their geographic disconnectedness, the first-in-family factor for many rural students, the compounding effect of regional hardship and the lack of local infrastructure around many tertiary centres in the regions. It seems only reasonable that the department should provide its justification for the proposed methodology in calculating and apportioning this levy.

Similarly, clause 9 of the levy bill states:

The regulations may provide for exemptions from levy—

but provides no details regarding where those exemptions might be appropriate. I acknowledge that the explanatory memorandum notes:

… exemptions may be made where a natural disaster impacts higher education providers' ability to enrol students or offer a full course load.

Again, though, this is an issue which is under ministerial control and which the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills has noted could raise some concerns. I ask the minister and the department for further clarity, both on the nature of the levy and on the basis of any putative exemptions.

The government expects to recover $33.2 million over three years from 2027-28 from this measure and then $11.3 million per year ongoing from higher education providers. I'm glad that there's a provision in this legislation that the minister must ensure that the cost recovery levy is no more than the actual costs of the ombudsman, but cost recovery arrangements should also include safeguards against unnecessary growth in the ombudsman's activities, staffing and costs. This should and could include clear reporting on complaint volumes, on the nature and outcomes of investigations undertaken by the ombudsman, on expenditure by activity, on staffing levels and on the effectiveness of education and outreach undertaken by the ombudsman. It seems only reasonable, given that the tertiary institutions have to pay for this facility to be established on an ongoing basis, that they should be able to understand the basis of the activities on an ongoing basis through some transparent reporting arrangements.

These safeguards are the more important because this legislation comes, let's face it, at a time of significant challenges for the tertiary education sector. Universities Australia reports that 13 Australian universities were in deficit in 2024. It has warned of growing regulatory compliance costs, and it has called for a review of higher education regulation to reduce red tape.

The Regional Universities Network providers, which cater for one in 10 university students in Australia, are recording net operating losses. There was a time in Australian history when governments accepted that higher education was a public good and they funded it like one, but that assumption seems to be eroding and higher education is quietly being privatised. The Regional Universities Network recognised this in relation to the National Student Ombudsman, pointing out that state based ombudsmen were previously funded by governments and that that was done in recognition of the fact that they serve a public interest. Australia seems to be walking back from that principle that, when something serves the public interest, it should be publicly funded.

I'm glad the government acted on the accord's recommendation to establish an ombudsman—again, this is an achievement that the crossbench fought very hard for—but the accord made 47 recommendations and many of them still sit unimplemented. In the context of Australia's approach to withdrawing funding from the higher education sector, that's hardly surprising. But the biggest elephant in the room is the policy that this government least wants to touch: the job-ready graduates program. Passed by the former coalition prime minister and minister for education, it has now been left to languish for longer under this government than the last by the current Labor prime minister and minister for education.

Job-ready Graduates increased the cost of some degrees—arts, law, business and economics—and decreased the cost of other disciplines, like teaching, nursing and STEM. In the process, universities received $813 million less in 2024 alone because the increases in the price of some degrees didn't fully compensate for the decreases in others. This was a package that cut the university sector by stealth. The Universities Accord was clear in its assessment that this policy has failed. It found that the intended purpose of Job-ready Graduates, which was to influence student choices through price signals, had not been achieved. It recommended urgent remediation. But the government has as yet done nothing to fix Job-ready Graduates. It says it wants to expand access to university. The minister says he's investing in students' wellbeing and safety. But the government continues to refuse to fix the HECS debt crisis caused by the Job-ready Graduates scheme. The government likes to invoke the Universities Accord when it delivers on it, but it ignores the accord when that requires some difficult decisions.

The National Student Ombudsman is an excellent example of what can happen when a government listens to students and acts on the recommendations of the accord. And the crossbench fought for it, because students need an independent avenue to raise complaints, to seek resolution and to ensure that they can remain and feel safe on campus. I'd like to give a shout-out to those campaigners, those fabulous brave women, from the STOP Campaign: Camille Schloeffel, Sophie Aboud, Nuria Olive and Lauren Taylor. There are more; I can't name them all. But all those wonderful advocates came to this place as part of that campaign and fought so hard and well for this and won.

The crossbench will continue to fight to protect students, and we'll continue to keep fighting on the Job-ready Graduates mess as well, because the thousands of students who called for the National Student Ombudsman, who cared about their own wellbeing and safety and that of those of the next generation of students, deserve no less than for this parliament to consider their financial safety as well.

As a former student of two universities and also a former teacher at TAFE and at ECU, I rise today to speak in strong support of our Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment (National Student Ombudsman Levy) Bill 2026 and the National Student Ombudsman Levy Bill 2026. This legislation establishes an enduring industry funded framework to safeguard student welfare and strengthen accountability across Australia's higher education sector.

For too long, students facing serious grievances—from administration unfairness to gender based violence—found themselves trapped in internal university processes that failed to protect them. In response, our government created the National Student Ombudsman, a free, independent and trauma informed avenue to resolve escalating disputes and drive systemic institutional improvement. As this critical body completes its establishment phase, this legislation today introduces a fair cost-recovery levy on providers, ensuring that the ombudsman has secure permanent funding without ever passing a cent on to the students. In short, this legislation delivers long-term sustainability to an essential watchdog that protects students, raises standards across providers and reinforces public trust in our tertiary education system. It's a necessary pillar of our broader generation mission to build an accessible, high-quality higher education sector for Australia's future.

Education has always been the greatest engine of opportunity in this country. It's a ladder by which Australians from every background, every region and every walk of life can build a better future for themselves, their families and our nation. But that ladder works only if our tertiary system is accessible, fair, safe and ready to meet the profound economic transformations of our time.

In February 2024, two years ago, our government released the final report of the Australian Universities Accord. The accord is not merely a policy document to sit on a shelf gathering dust. It is a long-term blueprint for higher education reform over the next decade and indeed the decade after that. It looked clear-eyed at the horizon and asked a fundamental question: what kind of workforce, what kind of economy and what kind of society does Australia need over the next 20 to 30 years? The answer delivered by the accord was stark and unmistakable. It found that, over the next few decades, Australia will need to increase the proportion of our workforce that has tertiary qualifications—a certificate, a diploma or a degree. That's 80 per cent of the Australian workforce who will require a tertiary qualification. It means more Australians at TAFE and more Australians at university. From the clean energy transition to the care economy and from advanced manufacturing to the digital technologies, our nation's prosperity relies entirely on the skills, knowledge and capabilities of our people. We can't afford to leave anyone behind, and we can't afford to delay.

When we received the 47 recommendations of the universities accord, we did not waste time. The Albanese Labor government has already implemented more than 30 of the accord's 47 recommendations in full or in part. We're delivering reforms that touch every part of the student's journey, from the moment they aspire to study through their years on campus to the day they enter the workforce.

First and foremost, we're tackling student debt. We're making HECS fairer and better. For too long, the burden of student debt has weighed heavily on younger Australians trying to get ahead, save for a home and build for their lives. We took decisive action, cutting HECS debts by 20 per cent across the board. We've capped indexation on HECS debts to the lower of the CPI—the consumer price index—and the wage price index, ensuring that student debt can never again be allowed to grow faster than average wages. And we are transitioning to a progressive marginal repayment system and lifting the minimum payment threshold, leaving more money in the pockets of graduates when they need it most.

We also recognised a profound injustice in education that had gone unredressed for decades, and that's placement poverty. For students in demanding disciplines, mandatory unpaid prac hours mean choosing between completing their degrees and putting food on the table or paying their rent. Our government introduced paid prac for the very first time in our nation's history. We started with student teachers, nurses, midwives and social workers, and we've extended that essential support across our allied health and care workers—students in clinical psychology, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, speech pathology, paramedicine, pharmacy, radiography, rehabilitation therapies, audiology and podiatry, the jobs of the future. By easing the financial squeeze on these students during their clinical placements, we're keeping them in their courses and ensuring our hospitals, clinics and schools have the future workforce they so desperately need.

We're also breaking down geographical and structural barriers that prevent capable Australians from reaching higher education. We have doubled the number of university study hubs across the nation, funding 20 new regional study hubs and 14 suburban study hubs—study hubs such as the one at York in my electorate of Bullwinkel and at Midland and Gosnells TAFEs—because we believe you shouldn't have to leave your community, your family or your job just to get study support when you're doing a tertiary certificate or degree. We've expanded the number of free university bridging courses, creating clear pathways for students who need extra support to step into higher education, and we've guaranteed demand driven Commonwealth supported places for all First Nations students who achieve the marks to get in, removing artificial caps and backing Indigenous excellence. We have established the Australian Tertiary Education Commission, ATEC, an enduring, independent steward of the tertiary system, ensuring that system-wide growth aligns with national priorities and student needs.

We're also opening the doors to higher education. Opening the doors is only half the task; we must also ensure that once the students walk through the doors of the environment it is safe, supportive, fair and accountable. Every student in this country deserves to pursue their studies in an environment free from harm, harassment and neglect. That's why our response to the accord included two historic integrity measures: the National Higher Education Code to Prevent and Respond to Gender-based Violence and establishment of the National Student Ombudsman.

For far too long, the complaints process within higher education institutions let students down. Longstanding failures in complaint handling left students feeling unheard, dismissed or retraumatised when they sought help. When a student faced serious grievances, whether concerning administrative mistreatment, unfair disciplinary actions, discrimination or even horrific incidences of sexual harassment and assault, they often found themselves running into institutional brick walls. Providers were frequently perceived as protecting their own reputations rather than safeguarding the welfare of their students.

The Albanese Labor government has said, 'Enough is enough.' We established the National Student Ombudsman to give every higher education student in Australia a free, independent and trauma informed pathway to escalate complaints about their higher education provider. If a student is unable to resolve concerns through their provider's internal process or if that process has failed them, they now have somewhere to turn. They have an independent champion with the statutory power, independence and trauma informed expertise to investigate matters thoroughly and impartially. The ombudsman's support provides safer, more accountable and more responsive higher education settings across the entire country.

That evidence is in, because the demand for this National Student Ombudsman has been significant, with 7,690 student contacts as of 31 August 2026. I note that 6,016 of those matters have been successfully resolved. Behind every one of those stats is a student who needed help—a student who was stressed, frustrated or traumatised and simply needed somebody to listen, investigate and deliver a fair resolution. The ombudsman has resolved 93 per cent of complaints through informal dispute resolution processes. That's how these outcomes are being achieved, and it's an extraordinary achievement.

The ombudsman is also driving systemic institutional change. Eighty per cent of the surveyed providers reported implementing system and service improvements following their engagement with the National Student Ombudsman's complaints-handling and education teams, so they're amending their processes in line with the National Student Ombudsman's recommendations. The ombudsman provides education and guidance on best practice in handling complaints, and it identifies systemic issues affecting students before these can fester into widespread failures. It strengthens university and college governance, elevates student outcomes and contributes directly to restoring and deepening public trust in Australia's higher education system.

The National Student Ombudsman Levy Bill 2026 establishes a fair levy on providers to maintain this system. But let's be clear: we established this. The start-up and operational costs of the ombudsman were fully borne by the Commonwealth government. But we're now stepping up and creating this model, which is an industry cost-recovery model, so that the system, the institute of the ombudsman, can continue to do its great work, because we know that the ombudsman fosters students, providers and the broader higher education system.

The legislation before the House today is about fairness, integrity and future-readiness. We have a generational goal to build the 80 per cent of our workforce that will hold a tertiary qualification. To reach that goal, we must continue to make higher education fairer, more accessible and more supportive. As I said, we're doing that by wiping 20 per cent off student debt, by supporting students in mandatory placements and with the study hubs in outer suburbs and regional towns. We're backing First Nations students and expanding the fee-free bridging pathways. And, with this bill, we're ensuring that an independent, trauma informed, fully funded watchdog will hold providers accountable and ensure every student is treated with the dignity and fairness they deserve. That is what good government looks like—being practical, being principled and being focused on the future. I commend the bill to the House.

I rise to speak in support of the National Student Ombudsman Levy Bill 2026 and the related legislation before the House. I am proud to represent Melbourne, one of the greatest education capitals of Australia. Our city is home to the finest universities in the country and institutions recognised around the world for the quality of their teaching, research and innovation. Every year, students from across Australia and across the globe choose Melbourne as the place where they will study, grow new skills and build a future.

Education changes lives. It remains one of the strongest predictors of future opportunity. It creates pathways into secure work. It lifts incomes. It improves health outcomes. It gives people more choice about the lives they want to lead. For our nation, it is one of the smartest investments we can make. That belief has always been central to the Labor movement. Labor has always understood that talent and ability are everywhere in our community, but not everyone has the same opportunity. A young person's future should not be limited by how much money their parents make, where they grew up or whether they happen to know the right people. That commitment to expanding opportunity through education has shaped generations of Labor reform, and it continues to shape the work of the Albanese Labor government today.

The legislation before us sits within a much broader vision of Australia's education system, a vision that recognises our future prosperity depends on having a more educated, more skilled and more productive workforce. The Australian Universities Accord set out that challenge clearly. It found that, over coming decades, around 80 per cent of jobs will require some form of tertiary qualification, whether that is a university degree, a diploma or a certificate. That presents an enormous opportunity, but it also creates enormous responsibility, because the decisions we make today about higher education will shape Australia's economic future for decades to come. That is why the Albanese government has not treated the universities accord as another report to be placed on a shelf. They have been getting on with implementing reform. More than 30 of the accord's 47 recommendations have already been implemented in full or in part. Those reforms are helping make higher education more affordable, more accessible and better connected to Australia's future skills need.

One of the first pieces of legislation passed by this parliament was the government's commitment to cut student debt by 20 per cent. More than 3.2 million Australians have now benefited, and more than $16 billion in student debt has been wiped. An Australian with the average HELP debt of $27,600 saw $5,520 removed from their balance. That reform has been particularly significant in my electorate. Melbourne has the highest number of people with student debt of any electorate in the country. Around 36,000 people in Melbourne are carrying HELP or VET student debt. They are young workers paying rent. They are graduates starting careers. They are people trying to get ahead while managing the cost-of-living pressures facing households right across the country.

The government has also made student repayments fairer. The income threshold before repayments begin has increased to $67,000. Repayments are now calculated on an income above that threshold rather than a person's total income. For someone earning around $70,000 a year, that means about $1,300 less in repayments annually.

These changes recognise something many students and graduates have been telling us for years. Getting an education should create opportunity. It should not become a life-long financial burden. In contrast to this fundamental idea, the conservative approach to education has always been easier on people who begin life with advantages. If your family can support you through university, unpaid placement may be manageable. If they can help with rent, rising student debt may feel less immediate. If you know how powerful institutions work, pursuing a complaint may be less daunting.

Government policy cannot be written only for people with money, confidence and connections. The answer of the three right-wing parties over there has for too often been that students should pay more, borrow more and manage the consequences themselves. Labor rejects that narrow view. University education should not depend on the size of your parent's bank account. Safety should not depend on whether a provider chooses to listen. Justice should not depend on whether a student has the power to fight an institution alone. Labor is prepared to widen opportunity. Those opposite remain far more comfortable defending a system that rewards the people already ahead.

The government has also introduced the Commonwealth prac payment. For years, students studying in professions we desperately need were often expected to complete hundreds of hours of mandatory placement work while receiving little or no income—teaching students, nursing students, midwifery students and social work students. Many were working long placement hours while still trying to pay rent, pay bills and keep food on the table. The Commonwealth prac payment is helping to address that problem and is expecting to support around 68,000 eligible students completing placements each year.

The government has also expanded access to higher education. New university hubs are opening across suburban and regional Australia. Free enabling and bridging courses are helping students who may not have followed a traditional pathway into university. Demand-driven Commonwealth supported places are now available to First Nations students who achieve the marks required for entry. Additional university places are being allocated as we prepare for Australia's future workforce needs. An additional 9,500 commencing university places have been allocated for 2026 alone. We have also established the Australian Territory Education Commission. Its role is to provide long-term stewardship of Australia's tertiary education system, helping ensure universities, TAFE, industry and governments are working towards a shared vision for the future.

All of these reforms have a common thread. They are focused on opening doors. They are focused on making sure people have genuine opportunities to develop their skills and contribute to their communities, and they recognise that building a stronger economy begins with investing in people. But opening the door of a university is only part of the job. Students also need confidence in the institutions they attend. They need confidence that concerns will be taken seriously, that university processes are fair and that, if those processes fail, there is somewhere independent they can turn.

That brings me to the National Student Ombudsman, which commenced operations on 1 February 2025. It was established following recommendations of the Universities Accord and forms part of a broader effort to improve safety, accountability and student wellbeing across Australia's higher education sector. It provides students with access to free, independent and trauma-informed complaint services. Students who have exhausted a provider's internal complaints process can take their concerns to the ombudsman and receive independent consideration and support. That service fills an important gap. Universities are large and complex institutions. For many students, particularly those with difficult personal circumstances, pursuing a complaint can be intimidating. Students should never feel powerless when they're trying to seek a fair outcome. The National Student Ombudsman provides an avenue for review that is independent, accessible and focused on achieving practical outcomes. The response from students demonstrates the value of the service. As of 31 August 2026, the National Student Ombudsman has received 7,690 student contacts and resolved 6,016. That level of demand tells us that students wanted an independent avenue and that students are using it. The outcomes have also been encouraging. Ninety-three per cent of complaints have been resolved through informal dispute resolution processes. That means students are receiving practical outcomes without unnecessary delays. The benefits extend beyond individual complaints.

The National Student Ombudsman helps identify systematic issues across the sector. It provides advice and education on better complaints handling. It shares better practice. It helps institutions improve. Around 80 per cent of surveyed providers have reported implementing systems and services improvements following engagement with the ombudsman. That creates benefits across the whole higher education system. Students benefit, providers benefit and the broader reputation of Australian higher education benefits.

The legislation before the House today ensures that work can continue as a sustainable footing. The government has provided $44.3 million over four years to underwrite the operations of the National Student Ombudsman. Under these bills, those operating costs will be recovered from higher education providers through an annual levy paid in arrears from 1 January 2027. Importantly, students will continue to access the service free of charge. A student's ability to seek assistance should never depend on their capacity to pay. The service exists to support students. Keeping it accessible is essential. The higher education sector also benefits directly from the ombudsman's work. Institutions benefit from improving complaints handling. They benefit from guidance and education, and they benefit from the identification of systematic problems before those issues become larger failures. A cost recovery arrangement recognises those benefits and helps secure the long-term future of the service.

I am so proud to represent Melbourne, Australia's great education city. That reputation has not happened by accident. It has been built over generations by students, educators, researchers and institutions that have helped make our city a destination for learning, discovery and opportunity. Every year, people come to Melbourne because they believe education can change their future. They come to gain skills, to build careers and to create opportunities that might otherwise have been out of reach. They deserve a higher education system that backs that ambition, a system that opens doors, a system that supports them through their studies, a system that listens when something goes wrong. The Albanese Labor government has been focused on building exactly that kind of system.

Through the Universities Accord, student debt relief, paid prac, expanding access to universities and with the establishment of the National Student Ombudsman, Labor is strengthening the institutions that help Australians build better futures. This legislation helps ensure that important work continues. It will ensure students retain access to a free and independent pathway for complaints and support. It will strengthen confidence in Australia's higher education sector, and it forms part of Labor's broader commitment to making education more accessible, more affordable and more responsive to the needs of students. That's because, for Labor, education has never just been about qualifications. It has always been about opportunity—opportunity for the student who is the first in their family to attend university, opportunity for the young person trying to build a better life and opportunity for communities, industries and a country that depends on the skills and talents of its people. That belief remains at the centre of Labor's agenda today. I commend the bill to the House.

I understand the member for Pearce would like to present a copy of their speech for incorporation into Hansard in accordance with the resolution agreed to on 6 November 2025.

The incorporated speech read as follows—

I would like to speak in support of the National Student Ombudsman Levy Bill 2026, a bill that secures the future of a service that has already changed the university experience of thousands of young Australians for the better. This bill relates to the funding of the National Student Ombudsman, and it ensures that this vital, independent, trauma informed service remains free for students while its costs are fairly shared by the higher education sector it serves.

The National Student Ombudsman opened its doors in February last year after decades of advocacy by students, survivors-advocates and the higher education sector itself. The universities accord recommended that we establish one, and the Action Plan Addressing Gender-based Violence in Higher Education, agreed by all Australian education ministers, called for it too. This government acted on those recommendations because students deserved a single, national, independent place to turn when things go wrong at university.

Before the ombudsman existed, students faced a confusing patchwork: individual university complaint systems, state and territory ombudsmen with different rules and, in many cases, no clear pathway at all. That complexity deterred complaints, delayed resolutions and too often left students—especially those experiencing sexual harassment, assault, discrimination or systemic barriers—feeling unheard and unsupported.

The National Student Ombudsman changed that. It is free for students, independent of universities and equipped with strong investigative powers, similar in nature to those of a royal commission, to examine a broad range of complaints.

It can bring parties together to resolve issues, offer restorative engagement processes and alternative dispute resolution where appropriate and make findings and recommendations for university action while monitoring how those recommendations are implemented. It handles complaints on student safety and welfare, racism, gender based violence, course administration, teaching and assessment, facilities, disciplinary processes and reasonable adjustments for both domestic and international students.

The early results speak for themselves. As at 31 August 2026, the National Student Ombudsman had received 7,690 student contacts since it opened its doors and had resolved 6,016 of those—78 per cent. These were complaints that, before the ombudsman's establishment, would have had to navigate that fragmented web of systems or in many cases would never have been made at all.

Behind those numbers are real stories: a student finally able to access reasonable adjustments after a long battle with their institution, a survivor of sexual assault supported through a restorative process that prioritised their safety and voice, an international student on an offshore campus able to lodge a complaint and seek redress without fear of visa repercussions, a cohort of students whose concerns about unsafe facilities led to tangible changes on campus. The ombudsman has given students a voice in the matters that concern them when they walk through the gates of our universities.

Its effect is felt beyond individual students. The ombudsman's statutory functions include educating the sector on best practice for handling complaints, and that work is already lifting standards across universities and other higher education providers. Eighty per cent of higher education providers surveyed by the National Student Ombudsman say they are implementing systems and making service improvements following its advice.

That is how you build a safer, fairer, more accountable higher education system—not just by resolving individual cases, but by changing the way institutions respond when things go wrong.

The Australian government funded the National Student Ombudsman during its establishment phase. That was the right approach. It allowed the office to stand up quickly, build capacity and begin taking complaints without delay. But, as the service matures and demand stabilises at a high level, it is appropriate to move to a cost recovery model that ensures long-term sustainability.

That is exactly what this bill and its associated bill do. This bill establishes the legislative framework to introduce a levy on higher education providers to recover the costs of administering the National Student Ombudsman. The associated bill amends the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act to provide for collection arrangements associated with the levy and its payment and allows for penalties for late payment.

The intent is that the levy will commence from 1 January 2027, which gives providers certainty to plan and ensures there is no gap in funding as we transition from the establishment phase. Most importantly, it will ensure that students can continue to access the National Student Ombudsman free of charge and that the costs of providing this critical service are borne fairly by higher education providers.

Some may ask: why not fund the ombudsman from general revenue indefinitely? The answer is simple. Fairness, sustainability and alignment with the 'user pays' principle that underpins much of our regulatory architecture. The ombudsman exists because universities and other higher education providers have a responsibility to their students. When complaints arise, it is appropriate that the sector collectively contributes to the independent mechanism that holds it to account and drives improvement.

A levy also creates a clear, transparent link between the service and its beneficiaries. Universities benefit from the ombudsman's work in multiple ways. It reduces the burden on internal complaints processes by offering an external, expert avenue; it provides sector-wide insights that help institutions identify systemic issues before they escalate; and it enhances public confidence in the integrity of Australia's higher education system. In that context, a modest cost recovery levy is a reasonable contribution to a service that strengthens the sector as a whole.

Importantly, the design of the levy recognises the diversity of the sector. The regulations will allow for a methodology that can take account of provider size, student numbers and other relevant factors so that the burden is proportionate and equitable. Small and specialist providers will not be treated the same as large, multicampus universities. That flexibility is essential to ensure that the levy supports, rather than distorts, a diverse and innovative higher education landscape.

This bill is not just about funding mechanics. It is about protecting students, especially those most at risk of harm and least able to navigate complex systems. The National Student Ombudsman was created in response to well-documented failures in how some institutions handled sexual harassment, sexual assault and gender based violence. It was created because too many students felt silenced, disbelieved or forced to choose between pursuing a complaint and continuing their studies.

By securing the ombudsman's funding, we are securing a safe, independent and expert avenue for those students. We are ensuring that a student in a regional campus, an online course or an offshore program has the same access to justice as a student on a main, metropolitan campus. We are ensuring that international students, who may fear repercussions for speaking up, have a confidential, no-wrong-door pathway to raise concerns, and we are ensuring that the ombudsman can continue to publish findings, guidance and sector education that prevent harm before it occurs.

The evidence is already clear. Where the ombudsman engages, institutions improve. Where its recommendations are implemented, policies change, training is enhanced and cultures shift. That is the kind of systemic change that keeps students safe and supports their success.

This bill sits within a broader reform agenda to make higher education fairer, safer and more responsive to students' needs. Through the universities accord reforms, we have introduced the National Student Ombudsman alongside the National Higher Education Code to Prevent and Respond to Gender-based Violence, expanded free university bridging courses and committed to new regional and suburban university study hubs. We have strengthened demand driven, needs based funding to support students from low socioeconomic backgrounds, First Nations students and those studying in regional areas.

The ombudsman is a cornerstone of that architecture. It provides the accountability mechanism that ensures other reforms deliver in practice, not just on paper. Without it, students would have fewer levers to pull when institutions fall short. With it, we have a continuous feedback loop. Complaints inform guidance, guidance informs practice and practice improves outcomes.

I acknowledge that some providers will have questions about the precise design of the levy. That is why the bill explicitly requires regulations to set out the calculation method following further consultation with the sector. The department will continue to work closely with universities, private higher education providers, student representatives and other stakeholders to finalise a methodology that is transparent, predictable and fair.

If there are concerns about capacity to pay, particularly among smaller or specialist providers, those are exactly the sorts of issues the regulatory design process is intended to address. The government's objective is not to impose an undue burden but to ensure that the ombudsman can continue its work without relying indefinitely on general revenue. A well-designed levy achieves both.

The National Student Ombudsman is working. It is resolving the majority of complaints it receives, improving institutional practice across the sector and giving students—especially those who have been silenced in the past—a powerful, independent voice. It costs students nothing, but it makes a profound difference in their lives. This bill ensures that difference endures. It transitions the ombudsman from establishment funding to a sustainable, fair, cost recovery model, with the levy commencing on 1 January 2027. It keeps the service free for students, places the costs where they belong—on the higher education providers who benefit from its existence—and embeds the ombudsman as a permanent feature of Australia's higher education landscape.

For the sake of students who have waited decades for this service, for the universities that are already improving because of it and for the integrity of our entire tertiary system, this bill deserves the House's support. I commend the bill to the House.

I rise today in strong support of the National Student Ombudsman Levy Bill 2026. At its core, this bill is about making sure students have somewhere to turn when something goes wrong—somewhere independent, somewhere free, somewhere they'll know they'll be listened to. Importantly, this bill is about making sure that service is properly funded and sustainable into the future.

This is an issue that is particularly important to me. When I was studying full-time at the University of the Sunshine Coast, UniSC, not only did I learn through my coursework; I also learnt through my time on the student senate and the university council. University is an incredibly important chapter of many people's lives. It gives them the opportunity to learn, to meet people from completely different backgrounds, to challenge themselves and to become involved in campus life.

One of the most important things I took away from my studies was the understanding of just how important it is that students have a voice. While at UniSC, I was elected to serve as co-chair of the student senate and as a member of the university council. I put my hand up for those roles because I wanted to help my peers—my fellow students. I wanted students to know that there was someone prepared to listen to them, someone prepared to advocate for them and someone prepared to make sure their concerns were heard. For me, student representation was never about having a title. It was about making sure that students had a genuine say in decisions that affected their education, their wellbeing and their university experience.

Student safety mattered to me then, student voices mattered to me then and they still matter enormously to me today. That is why I feel so strongly about the National Student Ombudsman. No matter how good a university is, some things can go wrong. Universities are enormous organisations. They have faculties, schools, administrative departments, enrolment processes, academic review procedures, placement requirements, complaints systems, appeal processes and pages upon pages of policies. If you work inside those systems every day, they make sense. But, for a student encountering them for the first time, particularly when something has already gone wrong, they can be incredibly difficult to navigate.

A student might receive a decision affecting their assessment, their enrolment, their placement or their progression through their degree. Suddenly, that student is not just dealing with the consequences of that decision. They are trying to work out who they need to speak to, what processes they need to follow, what their rights are, whether they can appeal and where they can go if they feel the internal system has failed them. That can be intimidating for anyone, but it can be particularly difficult for a student who has moved away from home for the first time, for an international student learning a completely new education system, for a student with disability, for someone from a disadvantaged background, for the first person in the family to attend university or for someone already dealing with a traumatic experience.

Students should not need a law degree just to work out how they can properly have their concerns heard. They should not be bounced from one department to another. When they have exhausted their university's internal complaints processes, they should not feel as though they are completely on their own. That is where the National Student Ombudsman matters.

The ombudsman gives higher education students access to a free, independent and trauma informed pathway for complaints that cannot be resolved internally. Every one of those words matters. It is free because access to justice and a fair complaints process should not depend on how much money a student has in their bank account. It is independent because sometimes students need somewhere outside their institution to turn. It is trauma informed because the issues students bring forward can be serious, confronting and deeply personal. There is an obvious power imbalance between an individual student and a major university. One student can be dealing with an organisation with thousands of employees, established administrative structures, detailed policies, professional advisers and lawyers. It is very easy for someone in that situation to feel small, to feel overwhelmed and to feel like nobody is listening.

The National Student Ombudsman helps to change that, and we already know that students are using it. The ombudsman commenced operations on 1 February 2025. By 31 August this year it received 7,690 student contacts and had resolved 6,016 matters—that is 78 per cent of all contacts received since the beginning of operations.

For a service that has only existed for a relatively short period of time, that is a significant level of demand, but the figure also shows something else. They show that the ombudsman is actually resolving matters. Ninety-three per cent of complaints have been resolved through informal dispute resolution, and that is an important result because a good complaint system does not need to turn every disagreement into a prolonged legal battle. Sometimes, what a student needs is for someone independent to look at what happened, to understand the situation, to make sure the process is being fair and to help find a practical way forward. That is exactly the kind of role the ombudsman is playing.

But his work is not limited to individual complaints. One complaint can tell us something much bigger about the way a system is working. It can expose unclear policy, a broken process, poor communication or a weakness in the way complaints are handled. That means helping one student can also help hundreds or even thousands of students who come after them, and we're already seeing that happen. Eighty per cent of higher education providers surveyed by the National Student Ombudsman reported that they were implementing system and service improvements following complaints handling and education engagements with the ombudsman. That is significant. That is not a service that simply receives a complaint, closes the file and moves on. It is helping universities improve, it is helping institutions identify weaknesses and is helping build a better higher education system.

That brings me to the levy at the centre of this bill. The National Student Ombudsman is no longer an idea. It is operating, and students are using it. Complaints are being resolved, and universities are making changes because of its work. If we want that work to continue, then we must fund it properly. During the establishment phase, the government bore the operating costs of the National Student Ombudsman. The higher education sector was advised in March 2024 that the government intended to move to a cost recovery model once the ombudsman was established, and this legislation delivers that model.

From 1 January 2027, the National Student Ombudsman will move to full cost recovery from the higher education sector. That means the institutions operating within our higher education system will contribute to the cost of maintaining the independent complaints mechanism that supports the accountability across that system. That's fair because, while the Ombudsman provides a service directly to students, the benefits flow across the entire higher education sector. Universities benefit when complaints are resolved earlier, they benefit when systemic problems are identified, they benefit when they receive guidance about improving internal complaints processes, and they benefit when students have greater confidence in the integrity of the higher education system, so it makes sense that the sector should contribute to maintaining that service.

One thing this legislation does not do is put that cost onto students, and that is incredibly important. A student should never have to think, 'Can I afford to make a complaint?' Students have already faced significant financial pressure. Many are working while studying. They are paying rent, buying groceries, paying for transport and trying to keep up with their studies while managing all the other costs of everyday life. There should not be another fee standing between them and independent support when they need it most.

The levy is designed to recover the operating costs of the Ombudsman in arrears. It is not intended to generate extra revenue for government. This is not a broad new tax. It is not money being collected for an unrelated purpose. It is targeted cost recovery mechanism for a specific service. That is an important distinction. The amount recovered is connected to the cost of operating the National Student Ombudsman, and, importantly, it means students can continue to access the service for free.

The government is providing $44.3 million over four years from 2026-27 to underwrite the annual operating cost of the ombudsman with those costs then recovered from higher education providers through the annual levy paid in arrears. That gives the ombudsman certainty, and certainty matters. You cannot have an effective independent complaints body if its staff are constantly wondering whether they will have the resources they need to do the job. Investigating complaints takes resources, supporting informal dispute resolution takes resources, identifying systemic problems takes resources, and working with universities to improve complaints handling takes resources.

The people doing this work need the expertise and the capacity to deal with what can often be complex and sensitive matters. This bill gives the ombudsman a sustainable funding base to do exactly that. The legislation also establishes the framework for administering the levy. The detailed rates and methodology will be developed through the regulations and guidelines following further consultation with the higher education sector. That is appropriate because higher education providers are very different. They vary enormously in size, student numbers, structure and location. So while parliament establishes the framework, the detailed operation of the levy can be developed in consultation with those who will be part of that system. The framework also provides for matters including refunds, remission or waiver, penalties for late payment and review of decisions relating to collection and recovery. That provides transparency, it provides accountability and it provides clarity for higher education providers about how the scheme will work.

This bill also forms part of a much broader agenda for higher education. In February 2024 the government released the final report on the Australian Universities Accord. That accord set out a major challenge for Australia: over coming decades we need more Australians with the skills and qualifications for the jobs of the future. That means more people going to TAFE, and it means more people going to university. But it cannot simply be about getting students through that front door. We have to support them once they are there. That is why this government has made HECS fairer. It is why we have introduced paid prac, why we have expanded the university study hubs, why we have increased access to free university bridging courses and why we have established the National Student Ombudsman.

The ombudsman also forms part of our broader work to address gender based violence in higher education, because when a student is dealing with something as serious as gender based violence or another traumatic experience, they should not be left to navigate a complicated institutional complaints process alone. There needs to be somewhere else to go—somewhere independent, somewhere that understands the seriousness of what they're dealing with. That is what the National Student Ombudsman provides.

The title of this bill talks about the levy, but ultimately this bill is about people. It is about the student who feels nobody is listening. It is about the student who has reached the end of an internal process and does not know where to go next. It is about the student who needs someone independent in their corner. It is about making sure that service is still there when they need it. When I think back to my own time at UniSC, I think about how much I enjoyed being a student. I think about serving on the council, and I think about being co-chair of the student senate. I think about why I put my hand up in the first place. It was because I believe that students deserve a voice, I believe their concerns deserve to be heard, and I believe institutions work better when they listen to the people that they work for.

University should challenge students—through what they learn, through the ideas they encounter, through the skills they develop and through the ambitions they pursue. It should not challenge them to work out which office will listen to them when something has gone wrong.

The National Student Ombudsman gives students another pathway. This bill makes sure that pathway has a sustainable future. It establishes a fair cost recovery model. It ensures the sector contributes to the service which it benefits from and protects free access for students. It gives the National Student Ombudsman the certainty it needs to continue supporting students across Australia.

As someone who has been a university student, who has represented students and who understands how important student voices and student safety are, I am incredibly proud to support this legislation. I strongly support the National Student Ombudsman, I strongly support giving students an independent voice when they need one, and I strongly support this bill. I commend the bill to the House.

In February 2024 the Albanese Labor government released the final report of the Australian Universities Accord, a blueprint for higher education reform over the next decade and the decade after that. Our government has made some serious and meaningful progress on the accord's recommendations, having already implemented 30 of the 47 recommendations. Some of our work in this space has included some much-needed, welcome and, quite frankly, overdue reforms.

It became apparent during the accord consultation process that we needed to act to help set up our tertiary education system to deliver for Australia's future skills needs. That means more people at TAFE and more people at university. It means acting on HECS to ensure that it is better and fairer for both current and future generations of students. That is why we cut 20 per cent off HECS debts and capped indexation on HECS debts to the lower of the CPI and the WPI. The 20 per cent cut to HECS debts was in fact the first bill to be introduced under the re-elected Albanese Labor government, and I was very pleased that we were able to so quickly deliver on that promise. In total, more than three million Australians have had their HECS debts cut by 20 per cent, and that only happened because of a Labor government. When we introduced our cut to HECS debt, the average student debt was about $27,600, and we've that debt by around $5,520.

This is incredibly important to my community. My electorate of Chisholm is full of highly aspirational families who value access to education. There are thousands of students in my community who find themselves studying at Deakin or Monash university or at Holmesglen TAFE. Chisholm saw more than 26,000 people have their HECS debt cut by 20 per cent, and this is so meaningful to people in my community. Also, in relation to HECS, we are moving to a marginal repayment system and are raising the minimum repayment threshold.

Another initiative that I know is so important to my community is the introduction of paid prac for the first time, covering many different courses. This means that students don't have to make a decision between completing a course and keeping their job. It affects courses such as teaching, nursing, midwifery and social work. We're also expanding the scheme to include clinical psychology, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, speech pathology, paramedicine, radiography, pharmacy, rehabilitation therapies, audiology and podiatry. We're also making demand-driven Commonwealth supported places available to all First Nation students where they get the marks to get in. And we're establishing the Australian Tertiary Education Commission as a steward of the tertiary education system.

I've spoken about the National Student Ombudsman before, as well as the National Higher Education Code to Prevent and Respond to Gender-based Violence, because these reforms are incredibly important to me. In fact, my advocacy for reforms in this space pre-date my election as a member of parliament by many years. Through the accord process, though, I had the opportunity, as an elected member of parliament, to hear directly from students and staff at universities about their own lived experience both on and off campus. It was during that process that I was able to reflect on my own lived experiences and those of my peers throughout my academic life, both as a student who lived on campus and as a staff member in a university. I know how important it was for us to introduce the National Student Ombudsman, and I undertook many consultations in my own community about this.

I'm so pleased that Minister Clare has led and delivered on the recommendation to establish the ombudsman. The ombudsman gives all students a free, independent and trauma-informed pathway to escalate complaints about their higher education provider. It was established in response to longstanding failures, frankly, in provider complaint handling. The National Student Ombudsman also supports safer, more accountable and more responsive higher education settings. This was something that many people in my community wanted to see. It came through very clearly from the higher education community survey that I undertook in my electorate.

The ombudsman help students who cannot resolve concerns through their provider's internal processes to do so. We know that the demand for the National Student Ombudsman has been significant, which clearly demonstrates that it was absolutely the right decision to move to establish this office when we did. It is necessary. The data backs this up. As of 31 August this year, 2026, the National Student Ombudsman had received 7,690 student contacts and resolved 6,016 of those matters. These numbers are important not only in and of themselves but also because every number represents a person, mostly a young student, who has needed the assistance of the ombudsman.

Let's think too of the early indications of the effectiveness of this scheme. We know that already 93 per cent of complaints brought to the National Student Ombudsman have been resolved through informal dispute resolution processes. This is important because it helps support practical outcomes for students while maintaining constructive relationships between students and providers. Indeed, 80 per cent of surveyed providers reported implementing system and service improvements following National Student Ombudsman complaints handling and education engagements. The National Student Ombudsman also provides education and guidance on best practice complaints handling, identifies systemic issues affecting students and contributes to stronger trust in our higher education system.

The purpose of the bills before the House today is to ensure that we are able to establish a levy to support the ongoing operation of the National Student Ombudsman and ensure that there is sustainable funding from 1 January 2027. This is an initiative that our government put on the agenda in March 2024, when we made the sector aware of our intention to recover the ongoing operation costs of the National Student Ombudsman. During its establishment phase, the costs of the National Student Ombudsman have been borne by the government, and it is appropriate to now move to a cost-recovery model. The levy helps sustain a service that benefits students, providers and the broader higher education system and ensures it remains a service that's free for students. It is so important, now that the National Student Ombudsman has been stood up and has delivered outcomes for thousands of students, that it is funded to ensure its long-term future.

As the Minister for Education has mentioned, the Australian government funded the National Student Ombudsman during its establishment phase. This bill establishes the legislative framework for the next phase, which is to recover costs by introducing a levy on higher education providers. That's the cost of administering the National Student Ombudsman that the levy will pay for. The associated bill will in practice provide for collection arrangements associated with the levy and its payment and will allow for penalties for late payment. In the regulations of the bill, the method for calculation of the amount of the levy will be set out following further consultation with the sector. This move to a cost-recovery model has been part of the design of the National Student Ombudsman since discussions began between the government and the sector in March 2024. It is the intention of this bill that the levy will commence from 1 January 2027. This will ensure that students can continue to access the National Student Ombudsman free of charge.

It is once again really significant to emphasise that since February last year we've seen over 7,690 student contacts with more than 6,000 resolved matters. This again demonstrates that the National Student Ombudsman has been good for students and universities and that we really do need to make sure that its future is secured. That means that the critical service relies on the payments by higher education providers through this levy. I know this is going to continue to be an institution that is of great benefit to students in my community, and this is beyond just being part of our work in higher education. The National Student Ombudsman was also part of our action plan to address gender based violence in higher education. Making sure that they have the investigative and dispute resolution powers is really important. This is, of course, connected to our broader work to end gender based violence.

One of the important aspects of the function of the ombudsman is that it ensures both domestic and international students have an effective trauma informed complaints mechanism to access when they're not satisfied by their higher education provider's response. I'm really passionate about this reform. It's been a long time coming. I've heard from hundreds and hundreds of people through my community survey in my electorate about the issue of higher education, and safety was consistently raised as a really important issue, so it's important that we're delivering on this and ensuring the future of the National Student Ombudsman through this legislation.

It's not easy for people to voice complaints. Indeed, we know in the past people have disengaged from education because they have felt there was no-one who would either listen or act for them when they have had unsafe experiences on their campuses. So I'm really pleased that we're taking the next step to ensure the future of the National Student Ombudsman, an incredibly important part of our higher education architecture in Australia now, and I commend this bill to the chamber.

An offer of a university place brings excitement, relief and the chance to imagine a different future. For a school leaver, it can mean the first real step towards work they have dreamed about for years. For a parent returning to study, it can mean a new career and greater security for their family. For the first person in a family to attend university, that offer can carry the hopes of generations. We encourage people to take that step.

A student deserves fair treatment throughout their course. They deserve a safe place to learn and a serious response to concerns about their wellbeing, and they deserve somewhere independent to turn to if university lets them down. The National Student Ombudsman provides that independent service and the bill before us, the National Student Ombudsman Levy Bill 206, will support its ongoing operation, keeping it free for students who need help.

My commitment to education began long before I entered this parliament. I'm a qualified secondary schoolteacher. I did the university study but haven't actually been a teacher in my career. I believe deeply in the value of learning and in the responsibility we share to give every young person a fair chance. I spent more than 13 years working for the Australian Indigenous Education Foundation, including as the deputy CEO, supporting educational opportunities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people. That work informs the way I think about education policy today. An opportunity has to come with support.

A place at an educational institution is the beginning of its responsibility to a student. Young people bring their own abilities and ambitions. Our institutions must provide the conditions for them to learn, ask for help and pursue those ambitions with confidence. For a student studying away from home, a problem at university can feel much harder without family nearby. For someone unfamiliar with university processes, even finding the right person to contact can become an obstacle. And for a student facing racism or discrimination, the response to a complaint can affect their sense of belonging. I want every Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander student to know that they belong in higher education if that is the path that they choose. Their cultures deserve respect. Their concerns deserve attention. We cannot ask students to be confident about their future and then leave them alone to challenge unfair treatment. Our ambition must extend from the offer of a place through to the completion of a qualification with support throughout.

These responsibilities have a direct connection to the community I represent. Griffith University's Southbank campus is home to the Queensland Conservatorium and the Queensland College of Art and Design. Students develop their talents in institutions that contribute to the cultural life of our community. At TAFE's Southbank campus, the University of Canberra partnership provides another local avenue into degree study. It brings university education into a setting familiar to many people pursuing practical skills and further qualifications.

These students are part of the everyday life of South Brisbane and our surrounding suburbs. They rent homes, work shifts and contribute to local organisations. Some balance study with caring responsibilities. Others have moved away from family to take up their place. A difficult experience with an education provider can reach into every part of that life. An unresolved complaint can consume time meant for assignments. Uncertainty can make it hard to concentrate. A student worried about their safety can struggle to keep up with attending their classes. We should be proud of our education providers and expect them to respond well to concerns. Independent scrutiny supports that expectation. It gives students confidence that someone outside their institution can examine what has happened.

The National Student Ombudsman began operating on 1 February last year, following years of calls for stronger student protections. The Australian Universities Accord recommended its establishment. Education ministers included in the national action plan addressing gender based violence in higher education. Our government acted on those calls. Students now have a free, independent service to help address concerns they have been unable to resolve with their higher education provider. Its work includes complaints about student safety and fairness of complaint processes. It can examine concerns about reasonable adjustments for students with a disability and aspects of course administration.

Think of a student seeking an adjustment that will help them participate in their course. Repeated requests go unanswered, and an assessment deadline approaches. They need a clear response and a fair process. They need to know what happens next. Or think of a student reporting harassment and then struggling to obtain information about the handling of their complaint. Each unanswered email can deepen their uncertainty. Each delay can make continuing their education more difficult. The ombudsman provides independent examination of the provider's actions. It can bring parties together to resolve problems, make recommendations and monitor the provider's response. That independence is a practical protection for students dealing with an institution that holds considerable influence over their future.

We should recognise the imbalance a student can face in that situation. A university has established procedures, experienced administrators and access to professional advice. A student making a complaint for the first time can feel overwhelmed by the process before anyone has examined the substance of their concern. They can worry about damaging relationships with the people responsible for their education. They can question whether speaking up will make their circumstances harder. An independent ombudsman gives them another avenue to pursue a fair response. The importance of that work lies in its ability to examine an institution's actions, seek explanations and recommend changes. A student's concern receives scrutiny beyond the provider's own processes.

Independence must come with the capacity to act. The ombudsman's investigative powers and ability to monitor recommendations give substance to the right to raise a concern. Students deserve a process that looks carefully at the evidence and treats everyone fairly, and providers deserve clear findings that help them understand what went wrong and what needs to change.

Students who experienced sexual violence spoke about the harm they suffered and the failures in the institutional responses that followed. They asked for accountability, and they sought changes that would protect other students from similar experiences. In September 2024, End Rape On Campus Australia, the STOP Campaign and Fair Agenda welcomed the legislation to establish the ombudsman. The founder of the STOP Campaign said:

We shouldn't have had to share the horrors of what we experienced to get change.

No student should have to make their most painful experiences public to persuade an institution to take their safety seriously. For someone already managing the effects of trauma, pursuing a complaint can require enormous effort. Retelling an experience, gathering correspondence and waiting for a response can add to that burden. The way a service listens can influence whether a person feels able to continue to seek help. That is why the ombudsman's trauma-informed work is so important. Respectful treatment must be part of the complaint process from the first contact through until its outcome. The national code to prevent and respond to gender-based violence forms another part of our government's work on student safety. The ombudsman provides independent complaint handling; the code sets expectations for prevention and responses to gender-based violence. This bill supports the continuing work of the ombudsman with that wider effort.

As of last month, the National Student Ombudsman had received 7,690 student contacts and resolved over 6,000 matters. That represents 78 per cent of contacts received since it began operating. The service has resolved 93 per cent of complaints through informal dispute resolution processes. That tells us something useful about the work involved. Independent complaint handling can help people reach practical outcomes without every dispute requiring a lengthy formal investigation.

That value extends beyond the individual matter. 80 per cent of providers surveyed said the ombudsman reported implementing improvements to systems and services following its complaint-handling and education arrangements. A complaint can reveal a problem affecting another student who may never have raised it themselves. Fixing that problem can prevent further harm and save other students the effort of pursuing the same concern. The ombudsman helps providers recognise those patterns and improve their complaint handling. Better complaint handling gives staff clearer processes and gives students clearer answers. It can help an institution respond earlier, before a problem grows more serious or a student loses confidence in seeking help. The ombudsman's work reaches students who never contact the service themselves. They benefit from improvements made after someone else raised the concern. We should judge the service by that wider contribution, alongside the individual matter that it resolves. That is a reason to support its ongoing work across the higher education sector.

This legislation forms part of our government's response to the Australian Universities Accord. We have implemented more than 30 of the accord's 47 recommendations in full or in part. We have cut HECS debts by 20 per cent and made indexation fairer. We have raised the minimum repayment threshold and changed repayments so that they better reflect people's incomes. We have introduced paid prac, expanded access to free university bridging courses and invested in more regional and suburban university study hubs.

The ombudsman addresses another barrier: the risk that unfair treatment or an unresolved complaint will push someone out of their course. Every student who feels forced to abandon their studies carries the cost of that lost opportunity. Their family can feel it too, particularly after years of encouragement and sacrifice to help get them there. We should take that possibility seriously in every discussion about student support. The National Student Ombudsman helps uphold the promise we make to every student who accepts an offer of a place. Their education deserves our investment, their safety deserves our attention and their right to a fair hearing deserves a service they can rely on.

The National Student Ombudsman Levy Bill 2026 is about ensuring that students across Australia continue to have access to a free, independent and effective ombudsman for their needs. This is also about making sure that this important service has a sustainable funding model for the future. To understand why that matters, it's worth looking at the broader transformation taking place across Australia's tertiary education system. In February 2024, the Albanese Labor government released the final report of the Australian Universities Accord. That accord provides a blueprint for reforming higher education, not simply for the next few years but for the next decade and the decade after that.

The jobs our young people will enter are changing, the skills businesses require are changing and the qualifications Australians will need throughout their working lives are changing as well. Over the coming decades, around 80 per cent of people in our workforce will need a certificate, diploma or university degree. Reaching that level will require more Australians going to TAFE. It will require more Australians going to university. Importantly, it will require our tertiary education system to reach people and communities who have historically been underrepresented in higher education.

Already, the Albanese Labor government has implemented more than 30 of the accord's 47 recommendations, either in full or in part. We have made HECS fairer by cutting student debts by 20 per cent. Changes to indexation mean HECS debts are now indexed by the lower of the consumer price index or wage price index. We have increased the minimum repayment threshold and moved towards a marginal repayment system. Those reforms recognise that getting an education should help Australians get ahead in life, not leave them feeling as though they are falling further behind.

Alongside those changes, this government has introduced paid prac for the first time. For generations of students, compulsory placements have presented a very real financial challenge. We are changing that. It means more students can focus on completing the practical training they need without having to choose between their qualification and paying their bills. As well as this, access to university itself has also been expanded. The government is doubling the number of university study hubs, with 20 new regional university study hubs and 14 new suburban university study hubs.

I had the pleasure of seeing what this means first-hand to my community in the north. In January, I joined the Minister for Education to open Uni Hub Playford. For communities like mine, initiatives like Uni Hub Playford matter enormously. Not every student can simply pack their bags, move closer to a major university campus or reorganise their life around study. People have families, jobs, caring responsibilities, community commitments. Some are the first people in their family to consider university and may not have the networks or support that others may take for granted. Bringing university support closer to where people live helps break down those barriers. It tells students in the northern suburbs that higher education is for them too.

The government has also increased the number of free university bridging courses, helping more Australians build the skills and confidence necessary to begin higher education. However, a world-class university system cannot simply be measured by the number of students who walk through the door. It must be also judged by what happens to those students once they are in sight. Students need confidence that, when something goes wrong, their concerns will be heard. They need confidence their complaints will be taken seriously. Most importantly, there must be somewhere independent for students to turn when the internal process of their institution failed to resolve their concerns. That is why the National Student Ombudsman is so important.

For the first time, higher education students across Australia have access to a free, independent and trauma-informed service where they can escalate complaints about their provider. For too long, students who experienced serious problems could find themselves navigating the very institution they were complaining about in order to seek a resolution. Many institutions worked hard to resolve complaints appropriately, but longstanding failures in complaints handling across parts of the sector demonstrated the need for an independent pathway.

The National Student Ombudsman provides that pathway. So, when students cannot resolve an issue through their provider's internal processes, they now have somewhere else to turn. That can involve individual complaints, but the work of the ombudsman goes much further than that. It identifies systemic issues affecting students. Through its investigations and engagement with providers, it provides guidance about best-practice complaints handling. That work helps improve governance across the sector and provides insights that institutions can use to improve their own systems. In turn, that strengthens trust between students and their universities.

The early results demonstrate just how necessary this service has been. As of 31 August 2026, the National Student Ombudsman had received 7,690 student contacts. It had resolved 6,016 of those matters, representing 78 per cent of all contacts received since it commenced operations. Even more encouragingly, 93 per cent of complaints have been resolved through informal dispute-resolution processes. That means practical outcomes have been achieved for students while, where possible, constructive relationships between students and providers are maintained.

There is also evidence that this work is driving change beyond individual complaints. Of higher education providers surveyed by the National Student Ombudsman, 80 per cent reported that they were implementing system or service improvements following complaints-handling and education engagements. That is exactly what we should want from the ombudsman. The objective should not simply be to resolve one complaint and move on to the next; we should learn from those complaints. Providers should be able to identify where systems have failed, understand why they have failed and make changes so that other students do not experience the same problems.

The question before us, through these bills, is how we sustainably fund that work into the future. During the establishment phase, the costs of the National Student Ombudsman have been covered by the Australian government. The government made the higher education sector aware in March 2024 of its intention to move towards recovering the ongoing costs of the ombudsman's operations. The 2026-27 budget confirmed the next stage of that process. These bills deliver on the government's budget measure to undertake full cost-recovery of the National Student Ombudsman's operations from the higher education sector from 1 January 2027.

The National Student Ombudsman Levy Bill establishes the legislative framework for a levy on higher education providers. That levy will recover the costs associated with administering the National Student Ombudsman. It will apply to all higher education providers registered with the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency from 1 January 2027. Importantly, this levy is about cost recovery. It's not designed to become another revenue stream for government. Operating costs will be recovered in arrears, and the levy is not intended to generate additional revenue beyond the costs of operating the National Student Ombudsman.

The precise method used to calculate the amount payable will be established through regulations or guidelines, following further consultation with the higher education sector. That consultation is important because Australia's higher education sector is diverse, with no two institutions the same. Providers vary significantly in size, structure and the number of students they serve. The framework established by this legislation allows the government to undertake that further consultation before settling the detailed calculation arrangements.

Alongside the levy bill, the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment (National Student Ombudsman Levy) Bill establishes the associated collection arrangements. Payment of the levy, along with any applicable penalty for late payment, will become a condition of registration for higher education providers. Together, these bills provide the legislative architecture required for a sustainable cost-recovery model. The government is providing $44.3 million over four years from 2026-27 to underwrite the annual operating costs of the National Student Ombudsman. Those costs will then be recovered annually from higher education providers through the levy.

Critically, students themselves will not be charged. The National Student Ombudsman will remain free for students. That principle is fundamental to this legislation. A student experiencing a serious problem with their provider should never have to ask whether they can afford to have their complaint independently considered. Financial circumstances should not determine whether someone can seek help, nor should we establish an independent complaint system and then place a financial barrier in front of the students who need to use it.

Under this model, the sector contributes towards maintaining the independent system that supports accountability and improvement across that same sector. Providers benefit from better complaints handling, and they benefit from identifying systemic problems earlier. Universities benefit when students have greater confidence in their institutions, and the entire higher education system benefits when there are clear and independent mechanisms for accountability.

This reform should therefore be considered as part of the much broader work under way across tertiary education. The universities accord has given Australia a roadmap for where our higher education system needs to go. As we move forward as a nation, we need more Australians gaining qualifications. That means opening the doors of universities and TAFE to people who might previously have thought those opportunities were beyond their reach. Reducing financial barriers is an important part of making higher education more accessible, and bringing study opportunities close to where people live gives more Australians the chance to pursue a qualification without having to uproot their lives. Supporting students through compulsory placements helps ensure financial pressure does not stand between them and completing their degree. Expanding opportunities for First Nations Australians is equally important so that more students have the ability and ambition to attend university, and that they have a genuine pathway to do so.

Yet increasing participation is only one half of the job. Once we encourage more Australians into higher education, we also have a responsibility to ensure that the system works for them. Students deserve safe learning environments; they deserve institutions that respond appropriately when problems arise. When internal processes do not work, they deserve access to an independent avenue for resolving their concerns. The National Student Ombudsman provides that avenue.

In a little over a year and a half of operation, thousands of students have already reached out for assistance, thousands of matters have been resolved, and providers are changing their system as a result. That demonstrates the value of this reform and reinforces why it needs a sustainable funding base. For those reasons, I commend this bill to the house.

I'll sum up the debate. These two bills relate to the funding of the National Student Ombudsman. I got excited when the shadow minister walked in—obviously because I love seeing him and because he's got an excellent first name. I've always approved of that. There was that unfortunate term when we had another one, but he wasn't so good, so we dealt with him. But I understand he's here for the next debate.

Anyway, I do thank all members who've spoken, especially the government members. I think that last contribution summed up very well the broader context in which this bill sits and the work that the government's done to improve access and equity to higher education—particularly and perhaps most importantly for those students from the suburbs and the regions who may be the first in their families to go to university or pursue higher education or, indeed, TAFE. It's just as important.

You referred to the study hubs, cutting 20 per cent off all student debt, prac payments and so much more. It's certainly the passion that drives the Minister for Education. It's the consistent thread through his work in early childhood, in schools funding and in post-school funding, and it's core to the mission of a Labor government. That's a speech for another day. One of my family stories is about how my mum couldn't afford the uniforms to go and finish year 12, and could never achieve her dream of being a doctor and going to uni. It's core to our Labor values.

Within that context, the work of the National Student Ombudsman is so important. It has given students a voice in the matters that concern them when they walk through the gates of our universities, and it's helping our universities to implement best practice too. It's really important that it be set up for success to continue its work into the future.

These bills establish the legislative framework to introduce a levy on higher education providers to recover the costs of administering the National Student Ombudsman and provide for collection arrangements associated with the levy and its payment. It's nerdy, and it's niche, but it's important. The method for calculation of the amount of the levy will be set out in the regulations to this bill, following further consultation with the sector, and the bill makes clear—importantly, I'll finish on this point—that will be on a cost recovery basis. These things are done in accordance with the government's cost recovery framework, as is appropriate, and I commend the bills to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.