Category: Australian Tertiary Education Commission

The Australian Tertiary Education Commission legislation, Part 5, ATEC, TEQSA and the Threshold Standards

Andrew NortonLeave a comment

Under the legislation to establish the Australian Tertiary Education Commission, introduced into Parliament late last month, ATEC would advise the minister on the Higher Education Threshold Standards. All higher education providers must meet these standards as a condition of registration. The enforcement agency is the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency.

This post compares the current system for setting the Threshold Standards with how this would happen if the ATEC legislation passes unamended.

Current process for setting the Threshold Standards

The Threshold Standards are a legislative instrument – and so disallowable by either the Senate or the House of Representatives – made by the education minister: section 58 of the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011. Under the same provision the minister can make other quality-related standards, as part of a Higher Education Standards Framework.

The minister must not make a standard unless a draft has been developed by the Higher Education Standards Panel (discussed shortly): section 58(3)(a) TEQSA Act 2011.

The minister must consult with the state and territory education ministers: section 58(3(b)(i) TEQSA Act 2011.

The minister must consult with the research minister if that is a separate role (not currently): section 58(3(b)(ii) TEQSA Act 2011.

The minister must consult with TEQSA: section 58(3(b)(iii) TEQSA Act 2011.

The minister must have regard to any advice or recommendations given by the Panel or the consultation parties: section 58(4) TEQSA Act 2011.

Read More »

The Australian Tertiary Education Commission legislation, Part 4, ATEC’s independence from the government

Andrew NortonLeave a comment

The Universities Accord Final Report recommended that ATEC be an ‘independent statutory authority … to enable it to provide robust advice and support evidence-based decision making and planning’ (p. 234). This post explores the relationship between ATEC and the government, as set out in the ATEC bill introduced into Parliament last week.

I should say at the start that unelected bodies with significant powers (‘independent’) are not necessarily good things. Government agencies should work within clear goals and rules established by democratic processes.

But independence can be beneficial in ensuring that government (and the broader public) get honest data – the ABS is a model here. Independent bodies can also help governments avoid the temptation to do things that are politically beneficial in the short run but detrimental in the long run – the RBA is a model here. Both the ABS and the RBA make mistakes, but their overall approach is better than letting the government decide whether or not to release vital data or to set interest rates with public opinion in mind.

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

Administration of mission based compacts

The most important ATEC function will be to administer mission based compacts. As noted in a previous post, the content of mission based compacts will be driven by a ministerial statement of short-term and long-term strategic priorities: section 15. However this is not a legislative instrument: section 15(6). This means that neither the Senate nor the House of Representatives can disallow it. I take this as a democratic negative compared to the current system, under which key spending programs, such as equity and research block grants, have their own legislative instruments.

ATEC must prepare its own statement of strategic priorities: section 43. ATEC must take the minister’s priorities into account when performing its functions: section 15(4). Within the limitations of the new framework, this is appropriate in putting ATEC’s direction under the broad control of a person who can be subject to parliamentary questions, even if the ministerial statement of priorities cannot itself be vetoed. ATEC itself will appear before Senate Estimates.

Importantly, the minister will not give directions to ATEC in relation to decisions ATEC makes or in relation to ‘a higher education provider or a class or classes of higher education providers’: section 71(2)(b) & (c). This compares favourably to the current funding agreement system, under which the minister can effectively determine the content: section 30-25 of the Higher Education Support Act 2003. It is also better than the wide power to cancel course registration for international students, including on the basis of the ‘kind of provider’, which was approved by Parliament with modest improvements the same week the ATEC bill was introduced.

Section 71(2) reduces the risk of ministerial discretion being misused to penalise a university or universities in an arbitratry way.

The strongest guard against the misuse of power, however, is having rule-driven programs. On that the ATEC model would be worse than what we have now.

Read More »

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 »

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 »

Accord implementation proposals, part #5: Needs-based funding that is not aimed directly at needs

Andrew Norton1 Comment

The Accord implementation consultation paper on need-based funding for equity group members was released late last week, although students with disability will be discussed in a later consultation document. That leaves low SES, Indigenous and students at regional campuses for this paper.

When the Accord interim report came out I rated the principle of needs-based funding as one of its better ideas. But turning it into policy faces significant conceptual, practical and ethical issues. The consultation paper does not resolve these issues.

Funding based on needs versus equity group membership

The basic conceptual problem, in the Accord reports and this consultation paper, is that it remains unclear why needs-based funding should apply only for students designated as equity group members. With the exception of people with disabilities that require adjustments for them to participate in higher education, none of the equity group categories identify personal disadvantage. As the Accord report itself notes, groups other than the equity four are ‘under-represented’ in higher education.

The higher education system should help all its students achieve success, not just those that for historical reasons are included in the equity group list.

Many of the outcome differences we observe are the by-product of mass higher education, which brings a wide range of people into the system. There are more people who were not especially ‘academic’ at school, more people who have trouble financing their education, more people who have major responsibilities other than their studies. In a mass higher education system these students are core business.

Read More »

Accord implementation proposals, part #4: Managed demand driven funding for equity students

Andrew Norton3 Comments

When the Accord final report was published one recommendation that confused me was a policy to increase equity student enrolments that was “effectively ‘demand driven for equity’ but with planned allocation of places to universities”.

A demand driven system, under which universities can enrol unlimited numbers of students meeting set criteria, can sit alongside a system of allocated student places or funding. Current Indigenous bachelor degree demand driven funding, which would be retained in the Accord model, sits alongside a soft capped block grant for most other students. But for the same courses, or student categories, demand driven and allocated student place systems are mutually exclusive.

Any hope of clarity has been dashed by the Accord implementation paper on managed growth. It proposes “managed demand driven funding for equity students”.

Read More »

Accord implementation proposals, part #3: Distributing student places between qualifications & disciplines & the funding floor

Andrew NortonLeave a comment

Part 1 of this series on the government’s Accord implementation plans looked at the proposed Australian Tertiary Education Commission. Part 2 examined how student places would be allocated between universities. This post considers Accord implementation plans for distributing students places within universities between qualification levels and disciplines. In this post, at least, I find that some of the government’s proposals have merit.

Some background: The government has often allocated higher education resources differently depending on qualification level, course, field of education and sometimes students. This practice can target and/or limit spending on a policy goal. The trade-off is less flexibility in moving resources where they are needed. As a result, prospective students miss out or pay much more than the student contribution rate in the full-fee market.

In the 2010s sub-bachelor, bachelor and postgraduate CSPs were funded separately. Since 2021 they have been funded together, with exceptions for Indigenous bachelor degree students and medical courses.

The distribution of student places between qualification levels – postgraduate

While the Accord final report supported more Commonwealth supported places at the postgraduate level, it wanted to focus them on areas of “national priorities and skills needs”.

Read More »