Author: Andrew Norton

The Australian Tertiary Education Commission legislation – Part 3, Per student funding and student contributions

Andrew NortonLeave a comment

Since it came to office, Labor has deferred dealing with Job-ready Graduates student contributions. First it added student contributions to the Universities Accord list of issues. In February 2024 the Accord Final Report suggested basing student contributions on lifetime earnings. Subsequently the minister said the new Australian Tertiary Education Commission would provide advice. Now we have ATEC’s legislation, but how student contributions will be handled is less clear than I expected.

All legislative references, unless otherwise specified, are to the Universities Accord (Australian Tertiary Education Commission) Bill 2025.

The ATEC bill and per student funding

The ATEC bill does not mention student contributions at all. One of ATEC’s functions, however, will be to advise the minister on:

“The efficient cost of higher education across disciplines and student cohorts and in relation to the Commonwealth contribution amounts for places in funding clusters.”: section 11(d)(ii), section labelled “Functions of the ATEC”.

In different words, in a later section on “Advice and recommendations”, a topic of advice is:

“The costs of teaching and learning in higher education and overall higher education funding amounts, including on a per student basis.”: section 41(1)(b).

Read More »

The Australian Tertiary Education Commission legislation – Part 2, Mission based compacts

Andrew Norton2 Comments

An earlier post looked at the objectives of ATEC, as set out in legislation introduced yesterday. This post looks at mission based compacts, the key instrument of ATEC control over universities.

All legislative references, unless otherwise specified, are to the Universities Accord (Australian Tertiary Education Commission) Bill 2025.

Entering into mission based compacts is a function of ATEC: section 11(b).

Purpose of mission based compacts

Since the Universities Accord Final Report the term ‘mission based compact’ has been ambiguous. Whose mission will the compacts implement, the government’s mission or the university’s mission?

The ATEC bill tries to have it both ways. Section 28 describes the purpose of compacts as giving the ‘provider flexibility to pursue their goals and mission’ while also contributing to an ATEC statement of priorities for the sector, diversity in the system, and meeting the needs of the provider’s students and community.

The bill’s explanatory memorandum offers this passage of doublethink:

“Compacts will enable providers to demonstrate how their unique mission – the institution’s core purpose, values, and goals – aligns with national, state and local priorities, planning, and strategy, as well as industry engagement and innovations in learning and teaching. Informed by strategic priorities identified in the Statement of Strategic Priorities…”

How is a mission unique if it aligns with national priorities? All section 28 means, I think, is that universities can still pursue objectives not specified by ATEC, provided that these do not conflict with any requirements ATEC imposes. The extensiveness of those requirements will determine how much scope for independent action remains.

Read More »

The Australian Tertiary Education Commission legislation – Part 1, Objectives

Andrew NortonLeave a comment

Today the government introduced legislation to establish the Australian Tertiary Education Commission, which currently operates in an interim capacity without any direct legal power.

This bill is mainly about ATEC’s structures, objectives and functions with the critical funding legislation to follow next year.

The ATEC legislation will take a few posts to describe. Due to other commitments I may not cover it all this week. I am likely to revise parts of what I write after discussing the bill with others.

All legislative references, unless otherwise specified, are to the Universities Accord (Australian Tertiary Education Commission) Bill 2025.

Basic structure of ATEC

As previously announced, there will be three commissioners – a full-time Chief Commissioner, a full-time First Nations Commissioner, and a third part-time Commissioner: sections 9, 56(1), 57(1) & 58(1). All will be appointed by the minister for education for up to five years: sections 56(4), 57(4) & 58(4).

High level objectives

Section 13 of the bill sets out a ‘National Tertiary Education Objective’ to which ATEC must have reference when exercising its powers. At first glance it oddly does not directly refer to anything educational. The objectives are to

  • promote a strong, equitable and resilient democracy &
  • drive national, economic, and social development and environmental sustainability

In exercising its powers, ATEC must have regard to the objective of improving outcomes for persons facing systemic barriers to education. The current main equity groups are mentioned: ATSI, persons with disability, low SES, and people living in regional areas: section 14.

The lack of direct reference to education is less surprising in the broader context of this bill. With the Universities Accord final report, which recommended ATEC, higher education policy hit peak instrumentalism. This bill reflects that cultural and political change. Apart from the bill’s not very convincing references to university missions, higher education no longer has policy backing for its own academic purposes. It is just there as another policy tool to achieve government objectives. (The strategic examination of research and development will try to clean out the last remaining funds for research not aligned to government goals.)

The national, economic and social development goals are reflected in the detail of the ATEC bill. But it is unclear how ATEC will contribute to democracy, strong or otherwise, unless we define ‘democracy’ as universities implementing the policies of the elected government.

Read More »

The review of TEQSA’s powers – my submission

Andrew NortonLeave a comment

The government is reviewing the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) legislation. The government consultation paper is here. Submissions closed at the end of October.

Although my submission points out areas of over-regulation, it also concludes that TEQSA should have greater enforcement powers.

Multi-regulation

As I have pointed out before, higher education suffers from the same or overlapping areas of activity being regulated in multiple contexts and by different regulators.

One area where this is now particularly intense is student complaints. Both the Higher Education Provider Guidelines 2023 grievance and review procedures (for non-Table A providers) and since October 2025 TEQSA’s new Statement of Regulatory Expectations on Student Grievance and Complaint Mechanisms (all providers) regulate overall complaint procedures. My submission includes a table showing how, in many areas, these two sets of rules regulate the same topic in at least slightly different ways. This is confusing. The Higher Education Provider Guidelines complaints section should go if TEQSA continues with detailed regulation.

On top of these two general complaints processes are specific ESOS rules for complaints on certain matters by international students, the extremely detailed rules for gender-based violence cases that come into effect on 1 January 2026, and the National Student Ombudsman that started operations on 1 February 2025, and provides students with a chance to re-prosecute unresolved complaints.

On multiple agencies covering the same topic more broadly, one important point I read in other submissions, too late to include in mine, is the need to clearly define and distinguish the roles of TEQSA and the new Australian Tertiary Education Commission.

Read More »

Senate inquiry submission on mass cancelling courses for international students, banning new higher education providers, and Indigenous demand driven funding for medical courses

Andrew Norton2 Comments

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.

Read More »

Is the government introducing a de facto ban on new higher education providers?

Andrew Norton1 Comment

Update 28/11/2025: Last night the Senate accepted Coalition amendments that exempt higher education providers and TAFEs from the requirement to offer courses to domestic students for two years before being eligible to offer courses to international students. So effectively the provision discussed in this post applies only to non-TAFE registered training organisations. As I noted in the original post, offering courses to domestic students for two years is much easier for RTOs than higher education providers. Large numbers of RTOs have already met the requirement and could move into international education.

While this is good news, enrolment caps the government will try again to legislate next year could prove another insurmountable obstacle to education providers of any kind entering the international market.

————————————————————————————————-

Last week Claire Field published an interesting overview of 15 new higher education providers since January 2024. But growth of this kind would become very difficult if the government’s ESOS amendment bill passes unamended. It would limit registration of new providers offering courses to international students. This post examines whether the proposed restriction would, in practice, be a de facto ban on new higher education providers.

Under the ESOS amendment bill providers could not offer courses to international students without first delivering courses to domestic students, but providers are generally not competitive in the domestic market without offering FEE-HELP loans. But to get access to FEE-HELP, providers must demonstrate experience in delivering higher education – in practice usually by teaching the international students the ESOS bill would stop them recruiting.

Legislative references are to ESOS Act 2000 section numbers, as they are or would be if the amendment bill passes unchanged.

The proposed changes

The ESOS amendment bill would give the minister the power to suspend, for up to 12 months, applications and processing of applications for course and provider registration: sections 14C to 14F.

To be registered on CRICOS to offer courses to international students the provider must have delivered courses for consecutive study periods over at least two years to domestic students in Australia: section 11(2).

This post focuses on the section 11(2) change by looking at how providers have entered the international and domestic markets in recent years.

Read More »

The education minister should not have the power to cancel ‘classes of courses’ for international students

Andrew NortonLeave a comment

Update 28/11/2025: Last night the Senate passed the ESOS amendment bill with Coalition amendments. While I still believe this provision counts as very poor public policy – for reasons exanded up in my Senate inquiry submission – the Coalition changes do improve things somewhat. These are noted in the text below.

—————————————————————————————————-

The government is having another go at its 2024 Education Services for Overseas Students (ESOS) legislation, reintroducing it earlier this month minus the enrolment caps that saw it blocked in the Senate last November.

This post draws on and adds to things I wrote last year about proposed ministerial powers to suspend and cancel ‘classes of courses’.

The amendments discussed in this post were partly why I regarded the 2024 ESOS amendment bill as the single worst piece of higher education related legislation to come before the Parliament in my career.

What took it beyond standard bad policy was its use of broad ministerial discretion with minimal constraints on how it is exercised. That creates rule of law problems, making it hard to know in advance what the rules are. If passed, the amendments could lead to some education providers being arbitrarily punished for the actions of others.

Legislative references are to the section numbers of the ESOS Act 2000, as they are or as they would be if the bill passes unamended.

A mass course cancellation power

The bill gives the education minister power to simultaneously suspend or cancel multiple ESOS course registrations at multiple providers: division 1AB. It does this by making the unit of regulation a ‘class of courses’ – the definition of which is discussed below.

This mass cancellation power differs from existing laws that give the ‘ESOS agency’ (TEQSA in higher ed, ASQA in VET) power to suspend or cancel the registration of specific courses or specific providers: sections 83 to 92. It also differs from the current power of the immigration minister to issue a ‘suspension certificate’ to a provider. This can be done in specified circumstances such as fraud in visa applications, students breaching visa conditions, and other visa issues: sections 97 to 103.

Read More »

Student income support and the labour market

Andrew NortonLeave a comment

For the first time in years higher education student income support recipient numbers have increased. On a late June count, in 2025 147,490 students were receiving payments, up 10,575 or 7.8% on the same time in 2024. All three benefit programs – Youth Allowance, Austudy and Abstudy – increased numbers but 70% of growth came from the dependent Youth Allowance category, so people aged 21 years or less subject to a parental income test.*

Trends in total numbers

Although the 2025 upward trend is noteworthy given the recent history of decline, 147,490 recipients is still lower than any year in the 2009-2022 period. It’s nearly 73,000 below the 2014 peak, despite an increase in enrolments since then.

Policy decisions influence student income support numbers, but cannot fully explain these trends. The most significant negative policy change since 2014 was the 2016 conversion of the Start-up Scholarship to a loan, effectively reducing the non-repayable grant value of student income support by $2000 a year. But a downward trend started before then. Subsequent policy changes were small positives for students without, until 2025, stopping the decline in recipient numbers.

Read More »

Demand driven funding for Indigenous medical students – is it a good idea?

Andrew Norton3 Comments

In line with a 2025-26 Budget commitment, the government has introduced legislation for demand driven funding of Indigenous medical students from 2026.

While well-intentioned, this policy is unlikely to make any significant difference to Indigenous medical student numbers and could accidentally reduce the number of non-Indigenous medical students.

Is there a problem that demand driven funding can solve?

In his second reading speech, the minister noted the current low number of Indigenous doctors and the benefits for Indigenous patients of Indigenous health care workers.

As with the earlier demand driven system for Indigenous bachelor degree students, however, it’s not clear that a shortfall in Indigenous doctor numbers is a problem that demand driven funding will solve.

Universities already try hard to recruit Indigenous medical students, with special entry schemes and quotas in some cases. On the available data (below) they are having some success, a source of pride for the medical deans association. 3% of domestic medical students are Indigenous, compared to 2.3% of the overall domestic student population.

The main obstacle to further enrolment increases is unlikely to be funding rather than the difficulties in finding potential students who meet the entry requirements and are not being set up to fail.

Read More »

The last university over-enrolment crackdown – some possible lessons

Andrew Norton1 Comment

As announced last year, the government plans to crack down on so-called ‘over-enrolments’ – enrolling additional students on a student-contribution only basis once all a university’s Commonwealth Grant Scheme allocation has been used.

When a proposed new funding system is in place, from 2027, student contribution-only places will only be possible in a buffer zone above a university’s Australian Tertiary Education Commission allocation. 2% and 5% buffers have both been suggested. Currently over-enrolled universities will receive some additional funding to bring over-enrolments within their official allocation of places. However, this will not in all cases reduce over-enrolments to the permitted range. Significantly over-enrolled universities need to moderate student intakes in 2026 to bring their medium-term enrolments down.

Not many current Department of Education staff were there the last time a minister thought reducing over-enrolments might be a good idea. The story is worth telling.

Brendan Nelson and over-enrolment

From November 2001 to January 2006 the education minister was Brendan Nelson, a Liberal. Nelson was worried about the quality implications of significant over-enrolments. The first reference I can find to Nelson’s concern is in a media release from December 2001, a month into his term.

Read More »