National Student Ombudsman Levy Bill 2026
Mr FRENCH (Moore) (17:00): These bills are technically informed, but the policy question behind them is simple: when a student has a serious problem with their university or higher education provider, where do they go if the provider's own complaints process does not work? For too long, the answer was often, 'Nowhere particularly useful.' Students could find themselves dealing with internal processes that were slow, confusing, inconsistent or simply not equipped to deal properly with the complaint before them.
Where the complaint involves something serious, including gender based violence, poor complaint handling did not just create frustration—it could compound the harm. That is why the National Student Ombudsman was established. It commenced operations on 1 February 2025, and it gives all higher education students access to a free, independent and trauma informed service where they can escalate complaints about their provider.
It was established in response to recommendation 18(b) of the Australian Universities Accord. It also forms part of the action plan addressing gender based violence in higher education, agreed by all Australian education ministers in February 2024. The Ombudsman exists because students needed somewhere independent to go, somewhere outside the institution, somewhere that is not marking the assignment, deciding their progression or controlling access to their services.
An independent umpire matters most when one side already controls the ground, the scoreboard and the changerooms, and the early demand for the service tells us the need was real. As of 31 August 2026, the National Student Ombudsman had received 7,690 student contacts. It had resolved 6,016 of those contacts.
That is 78 per cent of all contacts received since it commenced operations, and 93 per cent of complaints have been resolved through the informal dispute resolution processes. That is significant because the objective here is not to create another bureaucracy that creates lengthy correspondence explaining why everyone remains unhappy. The objective is to solve problems, and the evidence so far is that the ombudsman is doing exactly that.
It is helping students reach practical outcomes and it is doing that while maintaining constructive relationships between students and providers. It is doing something else that is just as important—it is improving the system. The National Student Ombudsman does not only deal with one complaint at a time; it identifies systematic problems, it gives advice on best practice complaints handling, it provides education and guidance to providers, it helps institutions improve their governance, and it gives sector insight into where policies and processes are failing students.
Eighty per cent of higher education providers surveyed by the National Student Ombudsman say they are implementing systems or service improvements following the ombudsman's complaints handling and education engagements, and that is a pretty strong indication that this service is not just valuable to students—it is valuable to the providers as well. Better complaints handling means problems can be addressed earlier.
It means institutions can learn from failures. It means stronger governance and, ideally, it means fewer students needing to escalate a complaint in the first place. The policy question before the House is not whether the National Student Ombudsman should continue—it should—the question is how its ongoing operations should be funded, and that is what these bills address.
The National Student Ombudsman Levy Bill 2026 establishes the legislative framework for a levy on higher education providers. The purpose of that levy is to recover the costs of administering the National Student Ombudsman. Subject to the passage of this legislation, the levy will commence from 1 January 2027.
The Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment (National Student Ombudsman Levy) Bill 2026 then provides the collection arrangements associated with that levy. Payment of the levy and any applicable penalty for late payment will be made a condition of registration. In other words, one bill establishes the levy; the other makes sure the levy can be collected.
A framework without collection arrangements would be like establishing a parking fine and then deciding not to bother with the payment. Parliament does occasionally enjoy complexity, but thankfully not quite that much! Importantly, the method for calculating the amount of the levy will not be hardwired into the primary legislation.
That detail will be set through regulations or guidelines following further consultation with the sector, and that is appropriate. Different providers are different sizes. They operate in different markets.
They have different student populations. The detailed design needs to be informed by consultation and to be capable of adjustment. What the parliament is establishing here is the framework, and the principle is clear.
The levy is intended to recover the operating costs of the National Student Ombudsman. It is not intended to generate additional revenue, and it will cover those costs in arrears. The government is providing $44.3 million over four years from 2020-27 to underwrite the ombudsman's annual operating costs.
Those costs will then be recovered from higher education providers through the levy, paid annually in arrears. That distinction matters. This is cost recovery, not a revenue stream.
There is another distinction that matters even more: students will not pay to use the National Student Ombudsman. Access will remain free, and that is fundamental to the design, because there would be something deeply perverse about creating an independent complaints body for students and then putting a price on the door. Imagine telling a student who believes they've been treated unfairly, 'Yes, there's an independent body that can help you, but first please enter your credit card details.' That would defeat much of the purpose.
A complaints mechanism is meaningful only if students can actually access it. So the cost sits with the higher education sector, not with the student trying to resolve the complaint. That is appropriate, because providers benefit from the ombudsman's work, too.
They receive guidance. They receive insight into systemic issues. They improve complaints handling.
They improve services. They benefit from greater confidence in the higher education system. The government made the sector aware of its intention to recover the ongoing costs of the National Student Ombudsman in March 2024.
During the establishment phase, the Commonwealth has carried those costs. We are now moving to a sustainable cost-recovery model, and that is the practical purpose of these bills. But it's also important to understand where this legislation sits within the broader reform of tertiary education.
In February 2024 the government released the final report of the Australian Universities Accord. The accord is a blueprint for reform over the next decade and the decade after that. Its central challenge is a big one.
Over the coming decades, around 80 per cent of people in the workforce will need a certificate, diploma or degree. That means Australia will need more people at TAFE, more people at university, more people gaining skills throughout their working life. This is not simply an education policy.
It is a workforce policy. It is a productivity policy. If Australia needs more nurses, teachers, engineers, electricians, health professionals, technicians and skilled workers then our tertiary education system has to be capable of training them.
And if we need more Australians to enter tertiary education, the system has to work for the people who use it. It has to be accessible, it has to be affordable, it has to be safe and it has to be accountable. That is why the government has already implemented more than 30 of the accord's 47 recommendations either in full or in part.
We've made HECS fairer. We have cut HECS by 20 per cent. We've capped indexation at the lower of the CPI and the WPI.
We have moved to a marginal repayment system, and we have increased the minimum repayment threshold. Those changes matter because student debt should not operate as an unnecessary barrier to participation. We've introduced paid prac for the first time, and that now supports students in teaching, nursing, midwifery, social work, clinical psychology, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, speech pathology, paramedicine, radiography, pharmacy, rehabilitation therapies, audiology and podiatry.
Anyone who has undertaken compulsory placement knows the practical problem. You can be required to work a significant number of hours in a placement while also somehow paying rent, buying groceries and keeping the lights on. Apparently, the traditional policy response was to hope students had discovered the secret fourth job somewhere between lectures and sleep.
Paid prac is a recognition that compulsory training should not force students out of their course because they cannot afford to complete it. We're also doubling the number of university study hubs. That includes 20 new regional university study hubs and 14 new suburban university study hubs.
We are increasing the number of free university bridging courses. We've made demand driven Commonwealth supported places available to First Nations students who achieve the marks required for entry. We have established the Australian Tertiary Education Commission as a steward for the tertiary education system, and we have established both the National Student Ombudsman and the national code to prevent and respond to gender based violence.
These reforms are connected. The objective is not simply to get more Australians through the front door of a university or TAFE. The objective is to build a tertiary education system that supports people once they are inside, because participation is not just about admission; it is about whether students can afford to continue, whether they can complete compulsory placement, whether they can access support, whether they are safe and whether there is somewhere effective to turn to when something goes wrong.
The last point is what these bills are about. The National Student Ombudsman gives students an avenue beyond their provider's internal processes, it gives students confidence that a complaint can be heard independently, it helps providers improve their own systems, it identifies problems that extend beyond one institution or one student and it supports continuous improvement across the sector.
There is a broader public interest in that work. Australia asks students to make a significant investment in tertiary education. Students invest years of their lives.
They often take on debt. They make choices about employment, family and where they live. In return, they are entitled to expect institutions to have proper processes when something goes wrong.
When those processes fail, there should be meaningful external scrutiny. That is not hostile to universities. Good institutions should welcome accountability.
If a provider has strong systems, fair complaints procedures and a culture that responds properly to problems, an independent ombudsman is not a threat; it is another mechanism that supports confidence in the system. The experience of the first period of operation supports that conclusion. Thousands of students have already contacted the ombudsman.
Thousands of contacts have already been resolved. Providers themselves are making improvements as a result of the ombudsman's work. And that is precisely what an effective complaints body should produce: not an endless process for the sake of process, but better outcomes for individuals and better systems for everybody else.
These bills ensure that that work can continue on a sustainable footing from 1 January 2027. They establish a clear legislative framework for cost recovery, they provide for the collection of the levy, they allow the detailed methodology to be developed following further consultation with the sector, they ensure the levy recovers operating costs rather than becoming a revenue-raising measure and, critically, they ensure that students continue to access the National Student Ombudsman free of charge.
There is a fairly straightforward principle at the heart of this legislation: if we want more Australians to pursue tertiary education, we also have to build a system worthy of their confidence. That means affordable study, better access, support during training and placement, safe campuses and institutions, and accountability when things go wrong. The National Student Ombudsman is now an important part of that system.
These bills give it a sustainable funding base, while keeping access free for students. That is fair, that is practical and it strengthens the confidence in Australian higher education. I commend these bills to the House.