Senator David Pocock's additional comments

Introduction

1.1At a time of so much global unrest and domestic social disunity, our universities are more important than ever. As Nelson Mandela said, 'Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world'.

1.2This underscores why this legislation to create an Australian Tertiary Education Commission (ATEC) is so important, and so important to get right.

1.3The strength of higher education in Australia into the future will be tied to the work of the Commission. The inquiry into the Universities Accord (Australian Tertiary Education Commission) Bill 2025, through both the 70 submissions received and evidence tendered at the public hearing, demonstrates broad support across the higher education sector for the Commission's establishment.

1.4However, the inquiry also heard compelling evidence for a series of constructive amendments that would significantly enhance the Commission's operation and long-term impact. Many of these were captured in amendments moved by independent colleagues in the lower house, the Member for Curtin Kate Chaney MP and the Member for Kooyong Dr Monique Ryan MP, and I urge the Albanese Government to consider them in good faith alongside those I intend to put forward as recommended in these additional comments.

1.5The Universities Accord was a critical piece of policy work and establishing the Commission delivers on another of its core recommendations. The Albanese Government, and Education Minister, the Hon. Jason Clare MP in particular, deserves credit for continuing to pursue higher education reform over both their first, and now second terms of government. From establishing a legislated National Student Ombudsman to amending the rate of indexation on student debt and now legislating the Commission, these are key achievements that deserve appropriate recognition.

1.6On behalf of my community, I will keep pressing for more urgent action in delivering some of the Accord's other key recommendations, especially the reform of the Morrison Government's failed Job Ready Graduates Scheme, adjusting the timing of indexation on student debt and ending placement poverty by expanding the application of the Commonwealth Prac Payment Scheme to include medical and allied health students.

Ensuring the Commission's independence, expertise and resourcing

1.7Across submissions there is strong support for the creation of ATEC, but consistent concern that the current drafting does not establish a body that is sufficiently independent to fulfil the stewardship role envisaged by the Universities Accord. The Group of Eight argues that ATEC must operate as a 'strong, independent body' capable of providing long-term, evidence-based advice and initiating its own policy work, rather than acting only at the Minister's request.[1] Similarly, the Innovative Research Universities (IRU) stresses that ATEC requires genuine independence and capability, including the ability to commission research and provide advice on its own initiative, and that the current bill places significant restrictions on its advisory and publishing powers.[2] The Australian Academy of Science also recommends refining the language of the bill to strengthen ATEC's mandate to provide 'independent, proactive, responsive advice' and to draw on expertise from across the sector.[3]Queensland University of Technology (QUT) argues that ATEC must be able to initiate its own research, undertake horizon scanning, proactively provide advice, and publish reports (subject to appropriate safeguards), rather than acting only at the Minister's request.[4]

1.8A key structural concern is that the proposed governance and staffing arrangements risk entrenching dependence on the Department of Education (department) and the Minister. Science & Technology Australia argues that resourcing ATEC with staff provided at the Secretary's discretion is unlikely to deliver the intended autonomy or certainty of resourcing, recommending instead that ATEC be established with governance arrangements that allow it to recruit and employ its own staff.[5] Charles Sturt University similarly proposes that ATEC be empowered to undertake work on its own initiative and publish findings without ministerial constraint.[6]UNSW recommends amending the bill to enable ATEC to prepare and publish advice without requiring Ministerial request or agreement, and to clarify and limit the circumstances in which the Minister may direct the Commission.[7] QUT argues that Commissioners must have genuine discretion over staffing, including the ability to recruit expertise from the tertiary sector rather than relying solely on departmental staffing arrangements.[8]

1.9Several submissions argue that limiting ATEC to three Commissioners is insufficient for the breadth and complexity of its proposed functions. Charles Sturt University notes that the Accord envisaged at least five Commissioners and warns that a smaller body increases the decision-making burden, risks conflicts of interest, limits diversity of expertise and makes it more difficult to manage major tasks such as negotiating mission-based compacts.[9] UNSW similarly recommends increasing the number to at least five, and ideally seven, to ensure the Commission collectively holds the depth of expertise required across governance, funding, research, standards and equity, and to reduce the risk of powers being exercised by a very small quorum.[10]Across these and other submissions, the consistent theme is that a larger Commission would better reflect the diversity of the sector, strengthen independence and governance, and enhance ATEC's capacity to perform its expanded stewardship, advisory and compact-negotiation functions.

1.10Multiple submissions raise concern that the Bill does not adequately recognise the central role of research within Australia's tertiary education system. I note that we are still awaiting the release of the strategic examination of Australia's R&D system review completed at the end of last year. The Australian Academy of Science argues that the National Tertiary Education Objective (NTEO) must explicitly acknowledge the 'twin roles of universities in expanding knowledge through engaging in intellectual pursuits of research and critical inquiry, as well as centres of teaching and learning', warning that failure to do so risks narrowing the policy focus to teaching and participation outcomes alone.[11]The Academy emphasises that universities' research function is a public good, foundational to long-term national capability, and should be clearly embedded within the objects and purposes of the legislation.

1.11Related concerns were raised about the scope of ATEC's advisory and costing functions. The University of Melbourne notes that the Bill does not explicitly refer to research in key provisions and argues that the cost of research— including indirect and infrastructure costs—should fall within ATEC's remit to ensure coherent system stewardship and sustainable funding settings.[12]

1.12Amend the bill to explicitly empower ATEC to initiate inquiries and provide and publish advice without prior Ministerial approval.

1.13Remove provisions requiring Ministerial agreement before publication of advice and replace these with agreed protocols and safeguards.

1.14Provide ATEC with authority over its own staffing and budget and vest appointment powers in the Commissioners rather than the Departmental Secretary, consistent with the Jobs and Skills Australia Act 2022.

1.15Strengthen governance arrangements, including requirements for Commissioner expertise and transparent appointment processes, to reinforce institutional independence and public confidence.

1.16Expand the proposed number of Commissioners to at least five, to be appointed on a merits-based process, and give the Education Minister the power to appoint additional part-time Commissioners pro tempore to provide specific expertise to facilitate particular reforms.

1.17Amend the Bill to explicitly recognise research in the National Tertiary Education Objective and objects of the Act, and to clarify that ATEC's advisory, pricing and funding functions extend to research and research-related costs.

Sustainably and transparently funding our universities

1.18The proposed return to mission-based compacts has been broadly welcomed across the sector. However, evidence tendered to the committee indicates this is another area where the bill can be strengthened to provide more clarity and sufficient safeguards to ensure the compacts operate as genuine, negotiated instruments rather than mechanisms for centralised control. Charles Sturt University supports enhanced compacts but raises concern about the balance between institutional mission and government priorities, warning of potential politicisation and recommending clearer parameters and stronger consultation requirements.[13] The IRU similarly emphasises that compacts should support differentiation and alignment with local and national needs, but recommends amendments to strengthen ATEC's independence and clarify roles and responsibilities to ensure the model delivers genuine system stewardship.[14] The University of Canberra raises concerns about the provision in the bill allowing default compacts to be rolled over if negotiations are delayed. It cautions that delays in agreement undermine forward planning, budgets, student enrolments and workforce stability, and warns that default arrangements—while potentially useful as a backup—should not become routine practice.[15]

1.19The Group of Eight argues that for mission-based compacts to function effectively, ATEC must be able to facilitate alignment on shared objectives while respecting institutional autonomy, and that legislative amendments are required to allow ATEC to initiate its own inquiries and publish advice independently.[16]Professor Andrew Norton raises stronger concerns, suggesting the bill gives ATEC very broad and insufficiently constrained powers in relation to compacts, with limited parliamentary oversight and unclear limits on compact content.[17]

1.20As acknowledged in the Chair's report:

Both the University of Melbourne and the University of Sydney noted that there are 'no provisions for appeal in the compact negotiation or merits review when ATEC suspends a compact', with the latter arguing that including such a provision would strengthen the bill.

1.21Further, this was also a concern raised by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills of which I am a member.

1.22Transparency and appropriate parliamentary oversight is vital and I note the University of Sydney's comments in particular that:

Under the current system, funding allocations, performance requirements, and compliance mechanisms are embedded in legislation or subject to parliamentary instruments, ensuring parliamentary oversight and avenues for review. In contrast, the ATEC Bill 2025 delegates these powers to an unelected body, concentrating authority in bureaucratic processes with limited transparency and review. This change risks diminishing accountability to Parliament and the public, replacing open legislative debate with administrative discretion.[18]

1.23The NTEU also warns 'around the potential politicisation of the compacts, particularly in relation to institutional funding, noting that ATEC is not actually independent of Government'.[19]

1.24I also draw attention to IRU's recent analysis which shows the combined effect of job-ready graduates (JRG) changes reduced university base funding by $813m in 2024.[20]Universities Australia has also released a new report highlighting the critical financial challenges facing Australia's universities. Among its most alarming findings are that:

Over 40 per cent of universities have spent most of the past five years in deficit.

Average funding per domestic student has fallen six per cent in real terms since 2017, despite enrolment growth.

Around 33,000 student places are misaligned with funding, creating inefficiency and instability.

Australia's R&D investment has fallen to a 20-year low (1.7 per cent of GDP), while universities continue to subsidise research from their own funds.[21]

1.25We simply cannot keep expecting universities to do more with less or further corporatise their business model, a topic discussed at length in the Committee's inquiry into university governance.

1.26Clarify the permissible scope of compact terms.

1.27Ensure compacts genuinely reflect institutional mission rather than solely government priorities.

1.28Introduce formal negotiation and appeal mechanisms for compact negotiations and introduce additional safeguards around ATEC's ability to suspend a compact. Strengthen transparency and consultation mechanisms and provide clearer statutory constraints and accountability mechanisms to preserve universities' autonomy and improve parliamentary oversight while de-risking the politicisation of compacts and enabling strategic alignment.

Reforming Job Ready Graduates

1.29Embedding equity into Australia's higher education system is something Minister Clare has to his great credit focused on relentlessly since being sworn into office.

1.30In his second reading speech on the bill, he talks about the Accord's recommendation to uncap Commonwealth funding for all Australian students from disadvantaged backgrounds, as the Government has already done for First Nations students.

1.31He said:

In other words, if you get the marks for the course you want to do, you will get a place at university. This is all about breaking down that invisible barrier the Accord talks about. Prizing open the doors of universities to more people from disadvantaged backgrounds.[22]

1.32This commitment to equity is very welcome.

1.33Concerningly, however, analysis of the latest student data from IRU shows that the continued operation of the Job Ready Graduates Scheme, which has now been in place longer under the Albanese Government than it was under the Morrison Government, is widening inequality.

1.34The IRU's analysis of undergraduate commencements from 2020–2024 highlights the impact JRG is having on students from low-SES backgrounds, which they say suggests ‘stronger price sensitivity for these students'.[23]

1.35Specifically, their analysis finds:

Total domestic undergraduate commencements declined by 3.5 per cent from 2020–2024, while low-SES student commencements were down 9.8 per cent.

In Law and Commerce (highest charging band), low-SES student commencements were down 17.7 per cent from 2020–2024, while all other groups were up 2.3 per cent.

In the lowest charging bands (including Education, Nursing and Languages), low-SES commencements were up 2.5 per cent, while all other groups were down 3.3 per cent.[24]

1.36This adds another layer of urgency to reforming what the Universities Accord clearly identifies as the failure of the JRG Scheme.

1.37As the Chair's report notes, concerns have been raised by multiple submitters about the omission of any reference to ATEC considering student contributions. Multiple submissions argue that ATEC's remit should explicitly extend to student contributions, not just Commonwealth funding, and that this is essential to addressing distortions created by the JRG reforms. The Group of Eight contends that ATEC must have authority to examine and recommend changes to both Commonwealth and student contributions, noting that JRG has entrenched inequities, particularly by disproportionately penalising students in humanities and social sciences. They recommend amending the legislation to clarify that ATEC's remit extends beyond Commonwealth contributions to include student contributions, so that funding reform can properly value all disciplines and support equity and lifelong learning:

ATEC must have the authority to examine the relationship between Commonwealth and student contributions and recommend appropriate funding clusters and rates. To achieve this, section 11 of the bill should be amended to make it clear that ATEC's remit extends beyond Commonwealth contributions to include student contributions.[25]

1.38Similarly, the IRU argues that ATEC must be empowered to advise on the cost of higher education to students as well as to government, and to provide advice on its own initiative, including in relation to major policy reforms such as JRG.[26]Professor Andrew Norton also highlights that, despite prior indications, the bill does not clearly confer power on ATEC to advise on student contribution reform and recommends amending the relevant provisions to ensure that student contribution amounts are explicitly within scope.[27] Collectively, submissions argue that without a clear mandate to consider student contributions and address the impacts of JRG, ATEC will be unable to deliver coherent, equitable and sustainable funding reform.

1.39Western Sydney University Vice-Chancellor, Professor George Wiliams, most clearly articulates this, saying, 'the aim is not simply to steward the sector for its own sake; it's to serve the needs of students and community'.[28]

1.40Amend section 11 to explicitly include consideration of student contributions in ATEC's remit.

1.41Ensure the ATEC is explicitly tasked with progressing timely reform of JRG, with a view to urgently addressing inequitable student contribution settings —particularly in arts and humanities disciplines—and mitigating the disproportionate debt burden and emerging socio-economic stratification associated with current arrangements.

Senator David Pocock

Senator for the Australian Capital Territory

Footnotes

[1]Group of Eight, Submission, p. 1.

[2]Innovative Research Universities, Submission 42, p. 6.

[3]Australian Academy of Science, Submission 39, p. 1.

[4]Queensland University of Technology, Submission 59, p. 4.

[5]Science & Technology Australia, Submission 23, p. 3.

[6]Charles Sturt University, Submission 43, p. 3.

[7]UNSW, Submission 54, p. 2.

[8]Queensland University of Technology, Submission 59, p. 4.

[9]Charles Sturt University, Submission 43, p. 8.

[10]UNSW, Submission 54, p. 4.

[11]Australian Academy of Science, Submission 39, p. 2.

[12]University of Melbourne, Submission 60, p. 10.

[13]Charles Sturt University, Submission 43, p. 3.

[14]Innovative Research Universities, Submission 42, p. 3.

[15]University of Canberra, Submission 47, p. 4.

[16]Group of Eight Universities, Submission 27, p. 2.

[17]Professor Andrew Norton, Submission 30, p. 19.

[18]University of Sydney, Submission 64, p. 3.

[19]National Tertiary Education Union, Submission 18, p. 5.

[20]Krishani Dhanji, ‘Nearly 20% fewer lower socioeconomic students studying law as Pocock calls to scrap Morrison-era job-ready scheme’, The Guardian (online, 20 February 2026).

[21]Universities Australia, Critical challenges in Australia’s university sector: securing a sustainable future, 2025 Edition, 18 February 2026.

[22]Minister for Education, The Hon Jason Clare MP, Second Reading Speech Universities Accord (Australian Tertiary Education Commission) Bill, 26 November 2026 (accessed 27 February 2026).

[23]Innovative Research Universities, IRU Brief: Update on JRG Impacts and Reform, February 2026, p. 1.

[24]Krishani Dhanji, ‘Nearly 20% fewer lower socioeconomic students studying law as Pocock calls to scrap Morrison-era job-ready scheme’, The Guardian (online, 20 February 2026).

[25]Group of Eight Universities, Submission 27, p. 4.

[26]Innovative Research Universities, Submission 42, p. 6.

[27]Professor Andrew Norton, Submission 30, p. 30.

[28]Professor George Williams, Chair, Innovative Research Universities, Proof Committee Hansard, 13 February 2026, p. 3.