Submissions for the ATEC bills Senate inquiry are appearing on the inquiry’s website.

My submission turned into a detailed analysis of the two bills, the main one setting up ATEC and another with consequential amendments to the Higher Education Support Act 2003 and the TEQSA Act 2011.

It draws from my seven posts to date on the ATEC bills: on its objectives, on mission based compacts, on student contributions and funding rates, on ATEC’s independence from the government, on the setting of the Threshold Standards, on international student caps, and on ATEC commissioners and their qualifications.

The bills should be rejected

The short version of my view is that neither bill should pass.

Although the full scope of ATEC’s powers won’t be seen without further legislation, the mission based compacts alone, as drafted, give the government/ATEC unprecedented power over universities.

This power is inconsistent with university autonomy and with proper parliamentary control over government officials.

On the available evidence, this power would be used to pursue a narrow instrumentalist view of higher education. Even modest acknowledgements that education has purposes other than economic or equity goals, such as the references to ‘cultural and intellectual life’ in HESA 2003, are conspicuously absent from these bills.

Even for those supporting the ATEC concept there many problems

While I think the ATEC bills should be rejected, my posts and submission suggest improvements. In total, my submission makes 23 recommendations for amendments to the bill.

I won’t go into detail on these here, but instead highlight specific issues the government itself would probably want fixed.

Disconnect between what the minister says and the bills

Through private briefings and public statements, including in the minister’s second reading speech, we have been told that the minister will issue a ‘statement of expectations’ to ATEC.

In the bill itself the statement turns into ‘short-term and long-term strategic priorities’ (rather than expectations).

If there is a practical difference between priorities and expectations, it may be that a ‘priority’ is an area to focus on while an ‘expectation’ sets a specific outcome the minister would like to see.

Possibly the word ‘strategic’ means that the minister’s priorities should be restricted to higher-level matters, not lower-level details that ATEC should work out.

While the second reading speech says the minister ‘will’ issue a statement of expectations the bill says that the minister ‘may’ (not must) notify ATEC of the minister’s short-term and long-term strategic priorities (rather than expectations): section 15.

FWIW I slightly prefer the language of ‘priorities’. A democratically-elected government can more legitimately set political priorities than unelected commissioners. A body of technocratic experts can more effectively work out how best to advance those priorities than a politician.

But the minister needs to understand his or her role and it is not clear that Jason Clare is getting what he wanted.

Drafting problems

The main bill shows signs of writing by committee, with loose ends, inconsistencies and duplications.

Research is mentioned in the bill’s objects and as a possible strategic priority of the minister, but is then absent from:

• ATEC’s functions,
• the topics on which ATEC can give the minister advice, and the
• required areas of expertise of ATEC commissioners.

Teaching quality is mentioned in the bill’s objects but similarly goes missing in other parts of the bill. Teaching appears in a costing clause, but with efficiency rather than quality as the objective.

As noted in an earlier post, ATEC would replace the Higher Education Standards Panel as the minister’s adviser on the Threshold Standards. It would also ‘provide advice and recommendations’ to TEQSA in relation to the Threshold Standards. Yet quality standards are not part of the required expertise to be an ATEC commissioner.

Essentially the same text, with minor grammatical differences, on advice in relation to equity groups appears in section 11 and section 41. With clearer drafting section 11 would create a general advisory function and cross-reference section 41.

The duplications between sections 11 and 41 have led to inconsistent wording on ATEC’s costing functions, which will cause bureaucratic confusion. As noted in an earlier post, neither costing clause expressly mentions student contributions. As the minister has publicly said that ATEC would look into student contributions this part of the bill may also not meet his expectations.

The Senate

This bill has to get through the Senate.

Liberal shadow education minister Julian Leeser seems sceptical about the whole idea of ATEC. Perhaps the Liberals will oppose the bill entirely.

I don’t recall statements from the Greens on the concept of an ATEC, but based on previous statements they would want to amend some specific features of the bill. They strongly oppose Job-ready Graduates arts student contributions, so not including advice on student contributions in ATEC’s functions will be a significant issue.

In another Senate inquiry, the Greens said that ATEC’s ‘foundational legislation should clearly articulate the public mission and the educational, social, and civic functions of a public university sector’. Education for interest alone is an alien concept for the Accord final report and the ATEC bill. My submission has a proposed amendment to put educational purposes into the legislation.

The ATEC bill has a clause to put caps on commencing international student enrolments, which the Greens have opposed from the time this was first proposed in 2024.

There is scope for significant amendment in the Senate. But apart from the proposed state of the tertiary education system report nothing in the bill would improve on current policy. Complete rejection would the best outcome.