Universities have condemned legislation to create the Australian Tertiary Education Commission (ATEC), saying the new sector regulator will lack independence and risks taking the sector backwards.
Universities Australia sets out in detail the HE community-backed ATEC ideal and makes plain that what the government wants is not it.
“Sitting at arms-length from government, an independent, expert body would ensure advice on skills, research and workforce capacity is given without political pressure and its decisions are based on evidence,” is the core of the all-university lobby’s case.
“Without such a body, Australia risks continuing the cycle of unpredictable tertiary policy settings, eroding trust, weakening research capability and leaving students, institutions and communities vulnerable to sudden shifts in political priorities.”
UA proceeds to dissect the bill section by section with recommended rewrites. In essence UA spells out what university communities optimistically assumed they were going to get, but aren’t.
“The Bill fails to clearly define the scope of national stewardship, despite the significance of this major structural change potentially positioning the ATEC as a quasi-regulator.”
UA also sets out the “most urgent issues” ATEC must address, perhaps because it fears they might slip the Minister’s mind, including;
- Harmonisation to enable frictionless student mobility across all of tertiary education
- “Work on understanding the true costs of delivering high-quality higher education within the current regulatory environment, (to) inform the ATEC’s advice to government on fair and sustainable ways of sharing these costs between students and taxpayers”
- ATEC-university compacts, “tailored to institutional missions and community needs” and balancing national priorities with diversity among universities
- Clarity that ATEC not the minister sets international student numbers per institution, with providers free to allocate then across courses
The Government wants the ATEC to be in two places at once. In December, Senate Estimate’s Department of Education secretary Tony Cook explained how that would work, with some of his staff working outside the Department but still being in it. “Outside but inside” said Liberal senator Maria Kovavic. “That’s exactly it,” Mr Cook replied.
But that is not quite what the Universities Accord review, which called for the Commission, had in mind, and there will no Hokey Pokey inning and outing if university lobbies have anything to do with it.
The Innovative Research Universities secretariat spelled out what just about all think in its submission to the Senate committee reviewing the legislation creating ATEC.
“(the Bill) is clearly less independent than the model recommended in the final Accord report, and with less capability than the model originally proposed by the Department in 2024,” the IRU submission said.
“In contrast to the Accord’s recommendation for a standalone national statutory body … the bill sets out a secondary statutory model. As drafted, the legislation places significant restrictions on the ATEC’s ability to provide and publish advice, to appoint staff, commission research and collaborate with the tertiary sector.”
In an unusually-understated submission the Group of Eight similarly wants ATEC to “operate with a clear strategic direction and remit, independent of short-term political cycles, to ensure stability and enable long-term planning.”
But the Eight certainly knows what it does not want, “without sufficient independence, authority, and resources, ATEC risks becoming another layer of bureaucracy— distracting from the sector’s commitment to deliver for the public good. If it cannot address pressing issues like JRG and plan strategically for the future, it will lack credibility and fail to deliver meaningful change.”
For this to happen, the Eight propose specific changes, including;
- Amending the Bill so ATEC does more than advise its minister, publishing research and proposing policy, like the Productivity Commission
- Rewriting the Bill so ATEC examines student contributions, as well as the Commonwealth’s contributions to the cost of teaching. How else, the Eight asks, is ATEC to get rid of the Job Ready Graduates Funding Model?
- Research and research training must be “embedded within ATEC’s powers and remit … if research is not properly represented in ATEC’s work, it cannot be an effective steward for higher education.”
- Clarifying whether the Commission or the minister sets student numbers per provider
- Using university agreements to allocate funding “to facilitate development and diversity” rather than using university specific agreements to set student places and allocate funding accordingly.
And in a textbook example of wanting to have their compact and eat it too, the Go8 calls for ATEC to be tasked with “reducing regulatory burden.”
In times past, the Regional Universities Network used to special-plead like the National Party but lately, RUN is realpolitik. Thus, its submission warns that the National Tertiary Education Objective in the Bill, is “too socially and economically expansive such that its achievement relies on many factors beyond the ATEC’s control.”
Most of RUN’s specific amendments are in line with the generality of submissions. ATEC must cover research and select its own staff. It should decide the issues the Minister needs to hear about. Plus, ATEC should look at the student contribution to the cost of degree clusters, not just consider what the Commonwealth kicks in.
So on the basis of all this, what will the Committee report? It is hard to imagine Government Senators recommending the Bill not pass but they will have to ignore a great deal of expert advice to give a tick, not the flick.