Update 28/11/2025: The Senate passed some amendments to this bill. These are noted in the original posts.

————————————————————————————————-

Senate inquiry submissions are due on Friday for the Education Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2025.

I am releasing my late draft submission in case it helps people finalising their own submissions and to identify any errors or omissions on my part.

Update 17/11/25: Final submission on the Senate committee website.

It builds on my three prior blog posts on the subject – on mass cancelling courses for international students, on a de facto ban on new higher education providers, and on extending Indigenous demand driven funding to medical courses.

Mass cancelling CRICOS course registrations

The main new content in the submission is description of existing legislative powers that can achieve the same claimed policy goals as the course cancellation proposal.

The practical effect of the bill, if it passes, would be to enable the suspension of the rule of law. It would allow the minister to make decisions according to vague criteria, without consulting anyone or considering other relevant laws. Due process would be abolished; providers could be penalised with course cancellation even if they have followed the law and acted ethically at all times.

It shocks me that this Trump-style bid to rule by executive order has even been introduced into Parliament. It’s staggering that, given nearly a year to think again since its original defeat last year, the government has brought back a bill that is, in some places, even more defective than their first attempt. I am referring here to removing the requirement to consult TEQSA or ASQA before cancelling a course on ‘standard of delivery’ grounds.

De facto ban on new higher education providers

The de facto ban on new higher education providers comes about because the two main ways into the market – FEE-HELP loans and international students – both now require two or more years of course delivery prior to approval.

The main new content is on how TEQSA responds to new provider risk with CRICOS and/or provider conditions.

I also have more on the contribution of non-Table A institutions to Australian higher education. Of the 119 institutions with 2024 Student Experience Survey results on overall educational experience the top 35 are all non-university higher education providers or private universities (admittedly the bottom 10 are NUHEPs as well). NUHEPs have similar results to Table A providers on equity indicators despite getting no equity funding.

Indigenous demand driven funding for medical courses

As in the original blog post the submission is mostly about the difficulties in mixing completely contrary funding systems – tight controls on numbers, uncapped numbers – in the same course.

I include some suggestions for managing this, especially around ensuring completion caps are lifted, medical student loading is paid for all students, and planning to avoid the accidental reduction in non-Indigenous medical students that could come from the transition.

I also discuss a ministerial discretion (they love ministerial discretion…) to remove a medical course from demand driven funding. The explanatory memorandum statement on how this provision could be used does not make sense to me. Maybe it will be used to prevent Macquarie University, with its full-fee medical school, participating in the scheme.