Chapter 5Education quality and the student experience
5.1The quality of Australia's higher education system was mentioned by various inquiry participants. For example, the University of Queensland referred to the sector's 'world-renowned reputation for high quality teaching, graduate outcomes and research commercialisation'.
5.2Likewise, Professor Andrew Deeks, Vice Chancellor and President of Murdoch University noted that 'the quality of Australian education and the Australian student experience is acknowledged around the world'.
5.3Indeed, the committee received evidence from universities and peak bodies about the priority universities place on the quality of education and the student experience. For example, Universities Australia noted its role in representing 'Australia's 39 comprehensive universities, all of which offer high-quality teaching and research experiences'.
5.4This was reflected in evidence from Professor Annamarie Jagose, Senior Deputy Vice Chancellor and Provost at the University of Sydney, who told the committee of the university's commitment to high quality education:
The public rightly expects public universities to deliver high-quality education and research that makes a meaningful difference to their lives. At Sydney we are deeply committed to this purpose across all areas of our institution. Students are at the heart of what we do at the University of Sydney, and in 2025 we continue to prioritise improving the quality of teaching and engaging students as partners.
5.5Deakin University stated that 'the quality of education Deakin and the interests of students, staff and the community are the primary areas of focus for the University Council', while the University of New South Wales highlighted its aim to 'improve and transform all lives through excellence in research, outstanding learning and teaching experiences, and a commitment to advancing Australia's economic growth and prosperity'.
5.6Similarly, Western Sydney University's (WSU) submission referred to its mission to 'ensure access to a world-class higher education, a great student experience, research that delivers impact, and dynamic, thriving Western Sydney communities. This was underscored by the Chancellor, Professor Jennifer Westacott AC, who told the committee that WSU focused on putting its students first, serving them and the region'. Likewise, Vice-Chancellor, Professor George Williams AO, reflected on the question 'good governance to what end? That, of course, is to staff, students and the quality of higher education'.
5.7Despite this, multiple contributors raised concerns about a decline in the quality of education being offered by Australian universities. While the committee heard that a range of factors have contributed to this perceived decline, various participants suggested it has its roots in the corporatisation of universities and poor governance practices.
5.8For example, the Australia Institute submitted that a large proportion of Australians 'are aware and concerned' about the impact of university corporatisation on educational quality. It highlighted survey findings showing that 83 per cent of Australians 'were concerned that universities focus on profit at the expense of education', with 50 per cent of all respondents being very concerned.
5.9This concern was reflected in evidence from Miss Jasmine Toronis, an Honours student, who contended that universities are increasingly acting as 'profit‑driven enterprises', rather than public institutions 'dedicated to education, research and student wellbeing'. MissToronis described the current system as 'fundamentally failing the very people it claims to serve: both students and educators'.
5.10Likewise, Dr Molly Dragiewicz, an academic with decades of experience in Australian and international universities, explained that she was submitting to the inquiry because of 'the rapid degradation of the quality of Australian university education' she has observed since emigrating to Australia in 2012. According to Dr Dragiewicz, 'factors related to tertiary education governance have a profound impact on students' educational experiences, employment outcomes, and working conditions for university staff'.
5.11A similar view was expressed by Dr Farida Akhtar, who also traced declining standards back to the quality of governance at Australian universities:
When governance quality is compromised—whether at the university-wide or Faculty or Department level—it triggers a cascade of negative consequences, affecting the broader educational ecosystem, the quality of research, teaching, and individual performance, and ultimately, the university's reputation.
5.12Conversely, Dr Akhtar contended that 'strong governance directly contributes to a robust education system, enhances research quality, and supports effective teaching', which ultimately strengthens the reputation of universities 'on both the national and global stages'.
5.13The remainder of this chapter focuses on:
reputational risks arising from declining quality standards;
factors influencing the quality of education at Australian universities; and
student experiences at Australian universities, including class sizes.
Declining quality standards and reputational risks
5.14Multiple participants highlighted the risks that declining quality standards pose to the reputation of Australian universities. For example, in the rationale for its audit of the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA), the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) noted 'significant public interest in the integrity of admissions standards, academic misconduct (including contract cheating) and the integration of international students into Australian campuses'. Further, it contended that 'these issues have a direct impact on the reputation of the higher education sector and the interests of students'.
5.15To this end, Dr Marija Taflaga, Dr Francis Markham, and Professor Keith Dowding stressed the importance of quality teaching and research to the benefits students receive from a university education:
Students also have an interest in the quality of teaching and research. The benefits of the education they receive depends on the credibility of the knowledge universities produce and disseminate. Unlike customers in a conventional market, students cannot easily assess the quality of what they are receiving at the time of 'purchase'; the value of their education is only realised over the course of their careers. This creates a classic problem of information asymmetry—which is why universities rely on academic self‑regulation and disciplinary standards of rigour to safeguard quality. When these standards are upheld, students gain degrees that are trusted by employers, professions, and the wider public. When they are eroded, students bear the cost in diminished educational outcomes and reputational damage to their qualifications.
5.16In this context, Professor Lionel Page described a situation where Australian students are incurring significant debts 'for degrees that may be diminishing in both educational content and market value'. Professor Page noted the 'growing challenges' this represents in terms of Australia's workforce development, with 'the erosion of academic standards' meaning 'university qualifications have become less reliable indicators of graduate capabilities'.
5.17A similar view was put forward by Public Universities Australia (PUA), which observed 'growing and legitimate public concern about the value of university degrees' and referred to a quote by a former vice-chancellor who noted that 'some degrees may be equivalent to "painting stripes on donkeys and calling them zebras"'.
5.18PUA also raised concerns that Australia's international standing is being diminished by a decline in academic quality and standards:
The manifest decline in academic quality and standards for which management bears responsibility, and the inability of Australian universities to compete in terms of quality with genuinely world-leading institutions, place our reputation at risk, despite, again, the illusion of performance.
5.19To this end, Dr Brett White observed that 'the decline in rigorous academic assessment and the rise of commercial pressures compromise the integrity of Australian higher education institutions and damage their international reputation'.
5.20Likewise, Mr Ian Gray highlighted a 'fundamental conflict of interest' for university councils 'between making money and setting standards'. In particular, Mr Gray drew attention to the consequences of lower admission and pass standards for degree level courses:
The consequences of both lower entry and pass standards range from possible catastrophic injury in vocational areas to damage to Australia's multi-billion dollar education sector's reputation.
5.21A similar view was expressed by one academic who put plainly:
Management is committed to doing everything possible to print more degrees, at any cost. Standards have plummeted, and blatant academic misconduct is ignored as long as the student can plant a shred of doubt. Enrolment numbers are the only thing that matters now.
5.22The impact of academic misconduct was also highlighted by Professor Page, who referred to the growing prevalence of contract cheating and stated that the failure to address academic misconduct risked weakening the reputation of Australian universities and eroding confidence in the value of Australian university degrees.
5.23For PUA, the decline in quality was seen as a risk to Australia's reputation as an exporter of higher education in the Asia-Pacific region. It cautioned that many students from the Asia‑Pacific region—who are focused on the quality of education and can afford to do so—already apply to study in the United States, the United Kingdom or Europe, where there is a concentration of higher quality universities. PUA continued:
Our positioning as a major 'exporter' of higher education within the Asia‑Pacific region has depended upon few if any institutions in those other countries able to trade on a reputation similar to Australia (as well as the perception that studying in Australia offered an easy entrée to permanent residency here), but with the decline in our own academic reputation and the emergence of multiple universities in China and India able to rival our own, our niche market is at risk. If neither government nor universities confront the reality of our deficient academic quality and standards, the reputation of our universities will itself further decline, and that in turn will pose significant financial risk within the current parameters.
5.24Concerns about the impact of lower standards on international student demand were also noted by Dr John Quiggin, although he observed there has not yet been a noticeable decline:
… there have been concerns that the financial incentives to maintain student numbers and 'keep customers satisfied' has led to a downgrading of academic standards. One feature of this concern is a belief that if the certification provided by Australian university qualifications is seen as less reliable, demand from international students will decline, thereby 'killing the goose that lays the golden egg'. So far, at least, this decline has not been apparent.
Factors influencing quality of education at Australian universities
5.25While the perceived decline in the quality of education at Australian universities was seen to have its roots in university corporatisation and poor governance practices, inquiry participants also drew attention to specific factors impacting education quality. These included increased workforce casualisation, growth in class sizes (and academic workloads), changing student cohorts (and the impact on entry and assessment standards), as well as a rise in academic misconduct.
5.26The remainder of this section provides a brief overview of the evidence received in relation to these factors.
The impact of increased workforce casualisation
5.27A number of participants made a link between the rise in insecure employment and a reduction in the quality of teaching at universities. For example, the Curtin Student Guild put plainly that 'staff working conditions are student learning conditions—universities cannot provide high-quality education if their workforce is overworked, underpaid, and unable to plan for job security.'
5.28In a similar vein, the Australia Institute noted that job insecurity was compounding pressures on academics and tutors. It pointed to a report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), which warned that casualisation is associated with negative impacts on staff—such as lower incomes and greater job dissatisfaction—that detract from the provision of quality education.
5.29Dr White described how those on short-term contracts are 'often overburdened with excessive teaching loads, leaving little time for research or meaningful student engagement'. This, in turn, 'affects students' learning experiences, as casual staff often lack the institutional support necessary to provide high-quality, consistent teaching'.
5.30A lack of meaningful student engagement was reflected in evidence from MissToronis, who described casualisation as 'rampant, leaving many teaching staff without job security, adequate time for student support or fair working conditions'. According to Miss Toronis, this has resulted in larger classes and minimal feedback, as well as 'reduced support services and lecturers who are overworked and underpaid'. Miss Toronis described her own experience as an Honours student:
I paid over $10,000 for an Honours year with fewer than 100 contact hours, classes thrown together last minute and minimal support. Not because of a lack of staff care but because the system is designed to keep them overworked, under-resourced and replaceable.
5.31The impact of casualisation on student engagement was also reflected in evidence from an academic who described how it was increasingly difficult to maintain quality standards:
The reality of university teaching in 2025 is grim: staff are overworked, underpaid, and so stretched that it is increasingly difficult to meet important standards of quality. Governance systems that perpetuate casualisation and austerity inevitably compromise education quality. Underpaid staff face untenable workloads, often forced to rush through assessments, limiting time for meaningful feedback and engagement with students.
5.32Limited marking time was also noted by Associate Professor Jessica Harris and Dr Kathleen Smithers, who explained that casual staff can be limited to claiming 'a maximum of one hour per student across a teaching period'. In some instances, 'staff are only paid for 10 minutes to assess and provide feedback on student work, severely limiting their capacity to support student learning'.
5.33This point was underscored by PUA, which submitted that lecturers—particularly those in casual employment—are 'advised not to devote the time necessary to fully read, assess and provide feedback on assignments and are not paid to do so'. The PUA suggested that the failure of universities to 'employ and pay sufficient lecturers' discourages grading and feedback—which 'are a form of teaching'—and defeats the purpose of assessments.
5.34Further, in its discussion about the 'dumbing down' of the nation, PUA argued that cost-cutting measures have led to the creation of 'increasing numbers of teaching only academic appointments, that formally break the nexus between teaching and research'. Similarly, it stated that students are separated from active researchers by the casualisation of the teaching workforce.
5.35Dr Molly Dragiewicz referred to the elimination, or significant reduction, of 'synchronous lectures/teaching by PhD-qualified permanent academics' who are subject matter experts. Dr Dragiewicz argued that this change is driven by 'a desire to reduce expenditure on teaching' and has resulted in job losses, reduced student contact hours and 'replacement of teaching by PhD qualified experts with tutorials and "facilitation" by gig workers on casual contracts'.
5.36In addition, Dr Dragiewicz submitted that the reduction in 'live teaching' has increased teaching administration workloads, resulting in reduced course preparation time, reduced course quality, and reduced learning quality for students.
5.37Further, Dr Dragiewicz asserted that while universities have responded to concerns by 'insisting that tutorials are superior', they are a 'poor replacement for lectures by PhD-qualified experts' given:
the variation in academic disciplines, which means that 'one size does not fit all for appropriate course structure or delivery modes';
tutorials are primarily delivered by PhD students (in some fields an honours degree, which tutors may have, is only four courses and one research paper beyond the bachelor's degree); and
tutors normally have not read the course texts or attended lectures for the courses they tutor, meaning professors/lecturers may have to simplify tutorial content, leading to complaints from students about the quality of such tutorials.
5.38Concerns about the employment of non-PhD qualified lecturers were also raised by PUA, which expressed the view that 'an earned and examined PhD by research as a specialist qualification' should be the minimum standard for appointment as a lecturer. The PUA highlighted the consequences of what it described as 'degraded entry into professional academic work and professional training':
In view of the progressive decline in all academic quality and standards in every discipline area in every Australian university, we now have entire generations of university lecturers educated only at Australian universities to inferior standards, who are not conscious of their own limitations or easily able to remedy them, who are now fully integrated within a defective and sub-standard system, and who could not educate a future generation to higherstandards without first improving their own education. They have been 'conditioned' by this system, they do not know that it was different pre‑Dawkins, and like most Australians they have limited experience and understanding of different international systems.
5.39To this end, the committee is aware that the employment of underqualified casual academics has also been the subject of recent media coverage of breaches of the Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2021 by the University of Sydney. According to media reporting, the university breached staffing standards by employing undergraduates—with as little as a year or two of study behind them—to teach other undergraduates and even master's students.
The impact of increased class sizes
5.40Evidence provided to the inquiry pointed to a significant increase in class sizes at Australian universities over the past 40 years. For example, PUA reflected that, in around 1980, the teacher‑student ratio at Australian universities was approximately 1:12 (calculated on full-time ongoing lecturers only). While PUA stated that a ratio of 1:10 is 'considered optimal', the current ratio in Australia is 'as high as 1:70+' (depending on calculation method). The PUA also noted that it also relies on 'a majority of casualised lecturers', who it argued should not be included in calculations as 'they are not paid to provide the essential level of teaching and supervision that this ratio is supposed to reflect'.
5.41The issue of increased class sizes was also raised by the Australia Institute, which argued that employing fewer staff members per student at universities is a widely used cost saving measure, with 'major implications for the quality of education'.
5.42The Australia Institute also observed that since the 2008 Review of Australia Higher Education—which found 'rising student-staff ratios were jeopardising the quality of teaching and the learning support provided to students'—'class sizes have become even bigger with fewer faculty per student'. The Australia Institute also pointed to the results of its survey, which found that 68 per cent of Australians were 'concerned about larger class sizes and fewer faculty per student', with 25 per cent being very concerned.
5.43The impact of increased class sizes on teaching and learning was discussed by both students and academics. Mr Will Burfoot, President of the Australian National University (ANU) Students Association reported a decrease in class and course availability, as well as class sizes that result in sub-optimal learning experiences, including some students being forced to sit on the floor:
Many report that they are unable to participate in their tutorials anymore, with so many people in the class that they are forced to sit on the ground if they want to be involved. Others have said they can barely see the whiteboard, much less participate in their tutorials, which have doubled if not tripled in size. Tutorial frequency has decreased for some degrees. Others have had fieldwork and labs cancelled. Courses you had planned to study are no longer being offered. These are all regular experiences of an ANU student. This is the reality that we are facing, and it is the direct consequence of a series of governance failures.
5.44Further, Ms Ashlyn Horton, National President of the National Union of Students, told the committee that some students at ANU were unable to assign themselves to tutorials in the timetabling system 'because the classes are so overfilled'.
5.45PUA noted that a lack of availability and large class sizes—along with a decline in their use as assessment exercises—meant that tutorials were no longer serving their original function:
Tutorials have specific functions that are no longer achievable, both because the class sizes are too large—they should not be more than 12 - and every course should be able to hold sufficient tutorial classes with paid academic staff for any number of students enrolled—and because often no longer being assessment exercises, students no longer prepare for them and therefore often learn nothing from them, and may not even attend.
5.46Academics also shared their frustration about the impact of increased class sizes on the quality of education they are able to provide. One tutor said that class sizes are 'often too large, with up to 30 students per tutor', which 'makes it impossible for tutors to provide meaningful, in-depth support to individual students'. Overall, they observed that university employment practices and a lack of support for tutors negatively affects education quality:
The current employment practices and lack of support for tutors directly impact students' learning experiences. Students have expressed to me how they feel unsupported and disengaged, which undermines the quality of education they receive. Tutors likewise express frustration and burnout, further reducing the quality of teaching and support available to students.
5.47A similar view was shared by the Australia Institute, which described the burden of large class sizes on student learning and staff wellbeing:
Academics and tutors are burdened with heavier marking loads, and interpersonal and applied skills are more difficult to incorporate into learning activities and assessments with larger class sizes. Students have fewer opportunities to participate in class discussions, and receive attention to their personal needs, in very large classes. All this has negative implications for the wellbeing of both staff and students, compounded by increasing job insecurity and turnover of academic staff.
5.48In contrast, the Australia Institute noted that smaller classes 'have been found to improve higher level thinking, student motivation, and satisfaction with their educational experience. In contrast, large classes are particularly detrimental to learning outcomes for disadvantaged students'.
The impact of changing student cohorts
5.49As discussed in Chapter 2, international students have become an increasingly important source of revenue for Australian universities. For many participants, this reliance on international student revenue has contributed to a decline in academic standards. For example, Professor Lionel Page argued that a focus on 'revenue generation through the aggressive recruitment of international students has precipitated a marked decline in academic standards', with the integrity of academic programs compromised to the extent that some institutions have awarded degrees to students who lack 'basic English proficiency':
Following a lower[ing] of the standard of students accepted, academics are under pressure from management not to fail a large proportion of them. This pressure is exerted both on the content being taught whose technical level is often progressively eroded to make it accessible to struggling students, and on the assessment policy, lowering standards.
5.50This view was supported by evidence from Dr White, who also contended that the push to enrol more international students had incentivised lower entry requirements and greater tolerance of academic misconduct:
Numerous reports indicate that some universities have pressured academics to pass underperforming students to maintain revenue streams. In one case, staff at an Australian university reported being coerced into inflating grades and ignoring plagiarism to ensure high-paying international students remained enrolled.
5.51The apparent manipulation of assessments and exclusion policies to retain student enrolments was recognised by another submitter who highlighted the potentially vast difference in achievement between students awarded the same qualification:
Universities manipulate exclusion policies and internal transfer mechanisms to retain students who would otherwise fail out, artificially maintaining enrolment numbers. Students may be passed with sub-50% scores via supplementary assessments in all subjects and receive the same degree and [Grade Point Average] as those that pass outright, and internal degree transfers are used to shift students into alternative programs to maintain retention figures.
5.52While there was a focus on international student enrolments, some participants also pointed to an increase in the numbers of domestic students who are not sufficiently prepared to attend university—nor adequately supported once they are there. For example, PUA stated that while the government encourages 'as many students as possible' to complete post-secondary qualifications, it does not support less prepared/able students taking longer to complete their courses and 'opposes attrition or non-completion'. At the same time, universities 'tend to pass and graduate most students irrespective of the level of education actually achieved'. According to PUA, 'this system is not conducive to ensuring that every graduate is fully qualified and knowledgeable, but rather the opposite'.
5.53In this context, one academic said that universities had sacrificed standards 'in the pursuit of more bums on seats and hence dollars in the coffers'. As an example, they described how, rather than teaching skills to an objective level', a unit with a fail rate above a certain level must be reviewed 'to see what is "wrong" with it and to make a plan to "fix" it'. The effect of this, they advised, was that academics are 'being told that we must pass people who do not know the material and do not have the expected skills'.
5.54A similar view was expressed by another submitter who stated that courses with 'historically rigorous assessments' were being redesigned 'to improve pass rates', blaming academics for student failure without addressing the declining entry standards' or student readiness.
5.55Concerns about the level of support offered to both domestic and international students were raised by another academic who had worked at universities in Australia and overseas. They observed both a rise in the number of students with higher support needs, as well as a reduction in the support available to students and subsequent pressure on academics to relax standards:
… there is progressively less and less support for our students in terms of less assessment tasks, less rigorous assessment tasks, less supervision in laboratories, less quality feedback on student work, more online assessment which is easier to mark (but which is susceptible to cheating), less help for students who are struggling with course content … University academics are heavily overworked … and the needs of the students when they enrol are increasing as well (more international students with English as a second language, students no longer need to have completed prerequisite courses at secondary school, more students with physical or mental disabilities, more students with mental health issues, more absentee students (and who may not even engage with study online), more students who struggle to find sufficient time for study while supporting themselves financially with full-time paid employment … There appears to be pressure to maintain expected distributions of grades for courses despite these challenges and I suspect that lax assessment rigor and more generous mark allocation on assignments and exams is now being deployed to maintain historical grade distributions and to mask a decrease in student academic performance. Again, this is in stark contrast to my experience working at universities in other countries where maintaining academic standards and institutional reputation was paramount …
The impact of academic misconduct
5.56Multiple submitters pointed to the impact of academic misconduct—and universities' responses to it—on academic standards and integrity. For example, Professor Page indicated that the lowering of academic standards has been compounded by 'the pervasive prevalence of contract cheating'. Professor Page noted research suggesting between two and eight per cent of students had 'engaged in commercial contract cheating', with the percentage increasing significantly 'when truth telling is incentivised'. He continued:
In 2022 alone, over 1,889 plagiarism and misconduct cases were recorded, an increase from 1,353 in 2018, with 89% of these cases being substantiated. Weak enforcement measures and administrative reluctance to confront the issue likely lead these numbers to be underestimated.
5.57Despite the increasing incidence of misconduct, Professor Page contended that universities 'often turn a blind eye to such violations' and that academics feel pressured to pass students who are suspected of cheating, 'fearing repercussions from university management if they uphold rigorous academic integrity standards'.
5.58This was reflected in the evidence of another academic who failed two students' assignments for plagiarism and reporting the academic misconduct:
In two specific instances, I identified and reported clear cases of plagiarism where students had directly reproduced content from the prescribed textbook. My decision to fail these assignments and report the academic misconduct was overturned, with the grades changed to passes without my consultation. Furthermore, I received a reprimand for not providing 'educative feedback' in these cases, seemingly prioritising student satisfaction over academic integrity.
5.59Evidence provided to the committee suggested that academic misconduct has been amplified by the watering down of assessments, including the move to online examinations. For example, one academic asserted that there was a drive at their university 'to get rid of exams all together, or to run them unsupervised (for example, to allow students to do them online from their bedrooms)'. While they stated there were 'genuine problems with exams as an assessment tool', they stressed that 'they are the *only* known way to efficiently test what a student knows, as opposed to what their friends or ChatGPT knows'.
5.60Similarly, PUA argued that the degradation of assessments was 'complicated by the high incidence of plagiarism and use of AI, to which perhaps the only solution would be to conduct individual oral exams … and invigilated written exams to which no aids are admitted'.
5.61The link between online exams and potential misconduct was also noted by other submitters, including an academic tutor at the ANU, who suggested that the lack of resources to monitor online exams meant that 'many students cheated and used AI tools inappropriately'. In addition, they disclosed that tutors were prevented from acting on this, instead being 'pressured into passing and inflating students despite clear evidence of such academic malpractice'.
5.62In addition, Dr John Fitzsimmons suggested that the increasing difficulty of detecting such misconduct has reduced the value and trustworthiness of the traditional learning pedagogies upon which universities' reputations have depended:
Nowadays, it's impossible to look at a student's assignment with a strong sense of its authenticity. The Internet provides so many options for students to augment their own work with the work of others including AI. This is largely undetectable. The point is that from a governance perspective, the practices of learning pedagogies upon which the university's reputation once depended are now if not useless then certainly untrustworthy.
Suggested actions to address concerns about the quality of education at Australian universities
5.63Inquiry participants proposed a range of actions in response to the perceived decline in quality of education at Australian universities. These included:
strengthening the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency's (TEQSA's) basic principles of regulation;
setting minimum standards in relation to staff qualifications, staff to student rations, and 'live' contact hours;
strengthening transparency and oversight of admissions processes;
introducing external credentialing to protect academic standards; and
increasing support for students.
Strengthen TEQSA's basic principles of regulation
5.64Evidence provided to the committee suggests there is a view among some universities and peak bodies that TEQSA has sufficient powers to regulate matters outlined in the TEQSA Act's objects. For example, the University of Southern Queensland argued that 'TEQSA already has all the powers it needs to carry out the function for which it was established' and highlighted TEQSA's key purpose as expressed in the objects of the TEQSA Act, which is to:
… protect and enhance Australia's reputation for quality higher education and training services, our international competitiveness in the higher education sector and excellence, diversity and innovation in higher education in Australia.
5.65Similarly, Independent Higher Education Australia took the view that:
… TEQSA's regulatory framework is robust for addressing corporate governance in higher education with respect to its core mission, that is, promoting academic integrity, protecting student interests and ensuring the overall quality and reputation of Australia's higher education sector.
5.66Further, the ANAO described protection of 'the reputation of the higher education sector and the interests of students' as 'TEQSA's key regulatory purpose'.
5.67However, TEQSA pointed out that the TEQSA Act 'does not specifically link the use of regulatory powers to public interest matters such as those in the Act's objects'. Instead, it explained that 'the basic principles in Part 2 of the TEQSA Act are framed in a way that':
involves a lengthy list of matters required to be considered in each exercise of power, primarily framed by reference to aspects of an individual institution’s history or risk to compliance
does not specifically address the need to consider possible harm arising from risks or failures by individual institutions.
5.68According to TEQSA, this means there is no requirement for it to specifically consider public interest matters—'such as the protection of students or of Australia's reputation for quality higher education'—when contemplating regulatory action.
5.69In this context, TEQSA identified an opportunity to address this limitation by strengthening the basic principles of regulation 'to prioritise student protection, provider accountability and Australia's reputation for high quality education'. TEQSA argued that:
An explicit requirement to consider matters relevant to the interests of students or the preservation of Australia's reputation for quality higher education would reflect an improved balance between the sector's protection from harsh or unjust regulatory intervention and the paramount importance of the protective purposes in the objects of the TEQSA Act.
5.70To this end, the committee is aware that the recent consultation paper, Modernising and Strengthening TEQSA's Powers, contained questions relating to changes that would ensure students are at centre of the higher education regulatory system. This included a question relating to the need for 'a positive duty on providers to take reasonable and proportionate actions to comply with the Threshold Standards':
A positive duty means TEQSA could act early, for example, where providers fail to take reasonable steps to protect students, rather than waiting for negative student outcomes to occur before acting. Under a legislated positive duty, providers would need to demonstrate they meet the Threshold Standards actively and continuously, through mechanisms such as regular reporting, monitoring, evaluation and evidence of preventive or supporting actions.
Establish minimum standards for staff qualifications, staff to student ratios and 'live' contact hours
5.71In response to concerns about a lack of standards relating to staff qualification and contact hours, Dr Dragiewicz proposed introducing 'minimum standards for in-person or synchronous online teaching by PhD qualified professors in permanent appointments'. According to Dr Dragiewicz, this could involve setting:
minimum staff to student ratios (based on permanent, full-time academic staff) calculated on the number of academic staff required to teach the number of enrolled students (using rolling five-year average enrolments);
a minimum of three live course contact hours with a professor or lecturer per course week:
currently, Australia has no standards for minimum contact hours with a PhD-qualified professor or lecturer or sessional tutor, which means 'it is not only possible but common to acquire a recognised university degree despite experiencing no actual teaching';
a minimum requirement for 75 per cent of courses in a degree to be taught by PhD-qualified academics on permanent contracts;
a maximum of 15 per cent of courses in a degree to be taught by PhD qualified sessional academics on term contracts; and
a maximum of 10 per cent of courses to be taught by higher degree research students-non-PhD qualified sessional academics on semester/term contracts.
Improve the transparency and oversight of admissions processes
5.72In response to concerns about lower entry standards, Professor Page recommended a range of measures that would 'mitigate the conflict of interest inherent in the current system', thereby allowing universities to 'uphold their academic integrity while contributing responsibly to Australia's migration framework'. These measures included:
decoupling educational and migration objectives, which could involve reassessing the weight of university enrolment in migration eligibility criteria, ensuring that academic institutions focus primarily on education;
establishing an independent body to oversee international student admissions to ensure decisions are based on academic merit and not influenced by potential financial gains related to migration incentives;
public disclosure of universities' admission criteria and processes for international students, including any adjustments made to language proficiency requirements, to maintain accountability and public trust;
fostering closer cooperation between universities and immigration agencies to ensure alignment between student admissions, educational standards and migration policies; and
undertaking periodic audits of university admissions to ensure compliance with established academic standards and to identify any conflicts of interest arising from the dual role of universities.
Introduce external credentialing to protect academic standards
5.73In response to concerns about the lowering of academic standards to attract and retain students, Professor Page suggested the introduction of external credentialing, which would allow 'academic organisations to set and uphold knowledge and skill standards independently of university management'. Professor Page noted the use of this approach in professional fields:
In professional fields such as accounting and finance, external accreditation bodies have long played a role in maintaining education quality. For instance, CPA Australia has established accreditation standards to evaluate the quality of accounting programs and their providers, ensuring that graduates possess the necessary competencies for professional practice. Similarly, the Institute of Certified Management Accountants (ICMA) administers the Certified Management Accountant (CMA) program, which rigorously assesses management accounting expertise.
5.74Professor Page argued that the broader use of credentialing frameworks would:
provide objective measures of educational outcomes by ensuring universities adhere to established academic standards and reducing incentives to lower curriculum quality;
empower academic organisations by shifting some authority over standards away from university management and toward professional and academic associations;
restore confidence in university qualifications by introducing independent benchmarks; and
strengthen Australia's international reputation by reinforcing the credibility of Australian higher education.
5.75To achieve this, Professor Page recommended that the Australian Government should support academic organisations to develop third-party credentialing processes based on existing international models. This could include:
encouraging professional and academic bodies to define standardised exit assessments;
establishing independent credentialing panels comprising academic representatives from multiple institutions and industry experts; and
introducing policies to integrate third-party credentials into academic and professional qualification pathways.
Increase support for students
5.76As detailed earlier in this chapter, a number of participants raised concerns about the support available to students, including the lack of time for meaningful engagement and feedback. To this end, submitters proposed a range of actions aimed at providing a more supported student experience. For example, as part of a recommendation to limit casualisation and improve job security, Miss Toronis proposed that all academic contracts include a requirement for 'paid time for feedback and student support'. She also proposed investing in 'student-facing education' by allocating funding to 'direct student support and academic mentorship, rather than administrative growth'.
5.77Another student, Ms Lola Seittenranta, described receiving 'poor feedback' during her studies, which she felt was likely related to the micromanagement and inflexibility of paid marking time. To address this issue, Ms Seittenranta recommended introducing 'a guarantee that students will receive appropriate academic support, such as individual formative feedback directly from the teaching staff within their course'.
5.78Given changes in the student cohort, there were also concerns about a lack of support for students who may not be adequately prepared for university study. To this end, PUA suggested that every university should have a funded and staffed tutorial service available to provide additional support:
Lecturers should be able to assume that every student before them has already achieved certain levels of knowledge and skills, which can then be further nurtured and built upon during their tertiary studies, but this cannot be assumed. Therefore, in order to provide sufficient support for all of these students, including but not limited to improving their English, research and arguing and analytical skills, every university should have a fully funded and staffed tutorial service available to tens of thousands of students daily.
5.79In a similar vein, one experienced academic—who highlighted the increased needs of students arising from a broader student cohort—argued for more funding for teaching support in order 'to provide a good student experience with fair and rigorous assessment and proper feedback on student work'.
5.80To this end, the committee is aware that the Australian Government is introducing a system of demand-driven needs-based funding to 'support students from underrepresented backgrounds … to progress their studies and complete their degrees'. Under this system, universities would receive additional per-student funding to provide academic and wraparound supports for students.