Under the bill to create the Australian Tertiary Education Commission there will be three ATEC commissioners: a Chief Commissioner, a First Nations Commissioner, and a Commissioner.

The commissioners will have significant administrative and advisory functions requiring expertise on a wide range of topics. I have covered two of these topics in detail in this series on the ATEC legislation, ATEC’s advice on the Threshold Standards that govern all higher education providers and on per student funding rates. Other subjects on which expertise will be needed include the equity groups, education demand, higher education administration, and research.

It’s not clear, however, that the three commissioners envisaged under the ATEC legislation will have expertise across the full range of fields.

Mapping ATEC functions and advisory roles against statutory selection criteria

In the Universities Accord (Australian Tertiary Education Commission) Bill 2025 sections 56 to 59 set out the qualifications for being a commissioner. All three commissioner roles have a general requirement for appropriate skills, knowledge and experience. Section 59 sets out specific required domains of knowledge and experience that they must collectively have. The table below maps these against the responsibilities of ATEC, as indicated across section 3 of the bill (Objects), section 11 (Functions) and section 41 (Advice and recommendations). 

Expertise/ standing	Chief Commissioner	First Nations Commissioner	Commissioner	Collectively
Tertiary education	✔	✗	✗	✔
Higher education	✔	✔or vocational education	✔or vocational education	✔
Vocational education	✗	✔ or higher education	✔ or higher education	✔
ATSI issues	✗	✔	✗	✔
Tertiary education governance & administration	✗	✗	✗	✔
Regional Australia	✗	✗	✗	✔
Stakeholder consultation	✗	✗	✗	✔
Research	✗	✗	✗	✗
Streamlining regulation	✗	✗	✗	✗
Quality standards/ teaching quality	✗	✗	✗	✗
New providers, mergers	✗	✗	✗	✗
Low SES	✗	✗	✗	✗
Persons with disability	✗	✗	✗	✗
University funding, finances and costing	✗	✗	✗	✗
Workforce & skills supply	✗	✗	✗	✗
Education demand & attainment	✗	✗	✗	✗
Higher education data	✗	✗	✗	✗
International education	✗	✗	✗	✗

Will the commissioners collectively have the right expertise?

In practice, a person who satisfies the selection requirement of knowledge and experience in ‘higher education’ will likely have that in several sub-domains listed in the table. Some topics are arguably ‘nice to have’ but not essential at the commissioner level – ATEC can use Jobs and Skills Australia for advice on workforce issues while ATEC staff can do data-related tasks and provide advice on them.

But some areas of expertise seem so significant for ATEC’s operations that they should be listed in section 59. These include quality and standards, low SES and university funding and finances. These are critical matters that will likely consume much of ATEC’s time.

Compounding the expertise problem, the legislation makes it theoretically possible that only one commissioner – the Chief Commissioner – will have higher education expertise. The other two commissioners need standing in either higher education or vocational education.

While reference to ‘tertiary education’ in ATEC’s title and other parts of the bill reflects aspirations for a more integrated post-school education sector, in the bill the specific vocational element of ATEC’s operations is minor – promoting coordination and collaboration between higher education and vocational education: section 3(1)(f); section 41(2). It is hard to see why this objective should rank above ATEC’s core activities. All three commissioners need significant understanding of the higher education system.

Is three commissioners too few?

Having more than three commissioners could give ATEC access to a wider range of expertise. But another reason for increasing the number is that a three commissioner system could easily lead to solo decision making by the Chief Commissioner.

A quorum exists when a majority of ATEC commissioners are present, that is two out of three commissioners: section 50(1).

If the Chief Commissioner is not present, he or she must appoint another ATEC commissioner to preside: section 49(2).

If there is a tied vote the person presiding has a casting vote: section 51(2).

So in a two person meeting the commissioner in the chair is effectively the sole decision maker.

With the commissioner position being part-time and with the other two commissioners entitled to annual and sick leave, two-person meetings are likely during a year.

Four commissioners

Increasing the number of commissioners to four would mean the Chief Commissioner would have to persuade at least one other commissioner of his or her view, in a 2-2 + presiding vote outcome. If the other commissioners felt strongly about something they could outvote the Chief Commissioner 3-1.

Conclusion

On my reading of the legislation the mission based compacts give ATEC significant powers over universities.

I don’t believe that one person, with potentially limited expertise on many of the topics of decision, should be given access to this level of power. Ideally these powers would also be curbed with legislation, but either way solo decision making should not be possible.