Lasting policy reforms, almost always, have difficult beginnings. Think Medicare, the Superannuation Guarantee, or the National Disability Insurance Scheme. They have proven transformative for so many Australians. Yet all three measures weathered early criticism over their impact on social equity, wage pressure and increased public spending.
Such big-ticket initiatives all carried political risk for their respective champions. They are all imperfect. However, they have evolved to an extent where their absence would untenable.
Australian universities confront a comparable moment of imperfect, yet essential, progress. Recommended as a centre piece by the Australian Universities Accord, legislation to establish the Australian Tertiary Education Commission has come before parliament. After many frustrating years of higher education reform, the provision of policy and funding certainty for the sector is very near, but not certain.
Labor's ATEC bill will need the support of the Coalition or minor parties to pass. It appears that the Coalition has serious reservations about the ATEC in any form. Should the bill fail, then the government's aim of lifting adult rates of tertiary qualifications to 80 per cent by 2050 will be in jeopardy. In the near term, up to $400 million in funding to kick start that expansion in 2027 may be at risk without the stewardship of the ATEC.
The ATEC is currently our best shot at ensuring that student growth is pursued sustainably and properly calibrated across a sector with diverse needs. It must be empowered to objectively test the merits of government policies in addressing priorities such as Australia's lagging productivity and the energy transition. For regional universities like Newcastle, the ATEC can play a role in ensuring our students are not left behind in these big economic shifts.
The question of the ATEC's autonomy should rightly be a consideration as the bill is scrutinised. However, it would be a mistake to make perfect the enemy of the good. That is why the passage of this bill should come down to whether it satisfies three minimum standards.
First. A decision on the ATEC's independence must be made. Ideally, it will be a tier one independent agency like the Productivity Commission. It must have its own staff and resources, be able to give unfettered and independent advice to government and the public as to the best policy options for tertiary education in Australia. The alternative is a tier two entity, subject to ministerial oversight and departmental staffing and resources. The latter is not ideal, but importantly it would be a workable starting point if government is uncomfortable with a wholly independent ATEC, because it would exercise its independence through its commissioners.
Second. The ATEC should have sufficient expertise. Its proposed composition of one part-time and two full-time commissioners is underdone. The stewardship of Australia's fourth largest export industry, a sector generating billions for the economy, requires more help. If these governance standards cannot be met in this Bill arrangements to co-opt external expertise as required should be provisioned and regulated.
Third. The ATEC must have the imprimatur to deal with the costing and pricing of university degrees. The government's fulfilment of its promise to cut student debt by 20 per cent provided much needed cost-of-living relief. But the ATEC should be empowered, as a first order, to address the root cause of education debt imbalances.
A transparent and proper recalibration of the cost of educating students and price students pay for education would address the distortions in the system. The underfunding of teaching in nationally critical STEM disciplines needs redress. Students in the business, arts and humanities disciplines are unfairly contributing to 93 per cent of degree costs.
The current system has encouraged the cross-subsidising of teaching and research via disproportionate numbers of high-fee paying international students. It has also seen the leveraging of the current degree pricing model by well-resourced universities to poach students from smaller or regional institutions. Nobody is well-served by these practices in the long run, least of all students, nor the national interest.
Cost and pricing analysis by the ATEC should be regular and cyclical. It must also include direct consideration of the student contribution. It would be a signature affirmation of the ATEC's independence, providing Australians with confidence in the fairness of our system.
The Universities Accord reform process championed by education minister, Jason Clare was all about equity. Granting the ATEC this cost and pricing function in this form is the most effective way to deliver the Accord reform.
These three minimum standards should guide and ensure the passage of a bill that, might not be perfect, but is a vital first step in bringing about positive reform. I have every confidence this is achievable through the parliamentary process.
The defeat by the Coalition and the Greens, in late 2024, of the government's bill to cap international student numbers is a reminder of the importance of compromise in achieving reform. The resulting limbo has exacerbated uncertainty in the sector, caused reputational damage, and destabilised a major export industry.
The risks of reform are real. So are the rewards. As a product of the Accord process universities long called for the ATEC deserves to be approached as a vital early-stage opportunity for the continual improvement of Australian higher education reforms, and not the last word.
Professor Alex Zelinsky AO
Vice-Chancellor and President of the University of Newcastle
