National Student Ombudsman Levy Bill 2026
Ms ROBERTS (Pearce) (17:55): The incorporated speech read as follows— I would like to speak in support of the National Student Ombudsman Levy Bill 2026, a bill that secures the future of a service that has already changed the university experience of thousands of young Australians for the better. This bill relates to the funding of the National Student Ombudsman, and it ensures that this vital, independent, trauma informed service remains free for students while its costs are fairly shared by the higher education sector it serves.
The National Student Ombudsman opened its doors in February last year after decades of advocacy by students, survivors-advocates and the higher education sector itself. The universities accord recommended that we establish one, and the Action Plan Addressing Gender-based Violence in Higher Education, agreed by all Australian education ministers, called for it too.
This government acted on those recommendations because students deserved a single, national, independent place to turn when things go wrong at university. Before the ombudsman existed, students faced a confusing patchwork: individual university complaint systems, state and territory ombudsmen with different rules and, in many cases, no clear pathway at all. That complexity deterred complaints, delayed resolutions and too often left students—especially those experiencing sexual harassment, assault, discrimination or systemic barriers—feeling unheard and unsupported.
The National Student Ombudsman changed that. It is free for students, independent of universities and equipped with strong investigative powers, similar in nature to those of a royal commission, to examine a broad range of complaints. It can bring parties together to resolve issues, offer restorative engagement processes and alternative dispute resolution where appropriate and make findings and recommendations for university action while monitoring how those recommendations are implemented.
It handles complaints on student safety and welfare, racism, gender based violence, course administration, teaching and assessment, facilities, disciplinary processes and reasonable adjustments for both domestic and international students. The early results speak for themselves. As at 31 August 2026, the National Student Ombudsman had received 7,690 student contacts since it opened its doors and had resolved 6,016 of those—78 per cent.
These were complaints that, before the ombudsman's establishment, would have had to navigate that fragmented web of systems or in many cases would never have been made at all. Behind those numbers are real stories: a student finally able to access reasonable adjustments after a long battle with their institution, a survivor of sexual assault supported through a restorative process that prioritised their safety and voice, an international student on an offshore campus able to lodge a complaint and seek redress without fear of visa repercussions, a cohort of students whose concerns about unsafe facilities led to tangible changes on campus.
The ombudsman has given students a voice in the matters that concern them when they walk through the gates of our universities. Its effect is felt beyond individual students. The ombudsman's statutory functions include educating the sector on best practice for handling complaints, and that work is already lifting standards across universities and other higher education providers.
Eighty per cent of higher education providers surveyed by the National Student Ombudsman say they are implementing systems and making service improvements following its advice. That is how you build a safer, fairer, more accountable higher education system—not just by resolving individual cases, but by changing the way institutions respond when things go wrong.
The Australian government funded the National Student Ombudsman during its establishment phase. That was the right approach. It allowed the office to stand up quickly, build capacity and begin taking complaints without delay.
But, as the service matures and demand stabilises at a high level, it is appropriate to move to a cost recovery model that ensures long-term sustainability. That is exactly what this bill and its associated bill do. This bill establishes the legislative framework to introduce a levy on higher education providers to recover the costs of administering the National Student Ombudsman.
The associated bill amends the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act to provide for collection arrangements associated with the levy and its payment and allows for penalties for late payment. The intent is that the levy will commence from 1 January 2027, which gives providers certainty to plan and ensures there is no gap in funding as we transition from the establishment phase.
Most importantly, it will ensure that students can continue to access the National Student Ombudsman free of charge and that the costs of providing this critical service are borne fairly by higher education providers. Some may ask: why not fund the ombudsman from general revenue indefinitely? The answer is simple.
Fairness, sustainability and alignment with the 'user pays' principle that underpins much of our regulatory architecture. The ombudsman exists because universities and other higher education providers have a responsibility to their students. When complaints arise, it is appropriate that the sector collectively contributes to the independent mechanism that holds it to account and drives improvement.
A levy also creates a clear, transparent link between the service and its beneficiaries. Universities benefit from the ombudsman's work in multiple ways. It reduces the burden on internal complaints processes by offering an external, expert avenue; it provides sector-wide insights that help institutions identify systemic issues before they escalate; and it enhances public confidence in the integrity of Australia's higher education system.
In that context, a modest cost recovery levy is a reasonable contribution to a service that strengthens the sector as a whole. Importantly, the design of the levy recognises the diversity of the sector. The regulations will allow for a methodology that can take account of provider size, student numbers and other relevant factors so that the burden is proportionate and equitable.
Small and specialist providers will not be treated the same as large, multicampus universities. That flexibility is essential to ensure that the levy supports, rather than distorts, a diverse and innovative higher education landscape. This bill is not just about funding mechanics.
It is about protecting students, especially those most at risk of harm and least able to navigate complex systems. The National Student Ombudsman was created in response to well-documented failures in how some institutions handled sexual harassment, sexual assault and gender based violence. It was created because too many students felt silenced, disbelieved or forced to choose between pursuing a complaint and continuing their studies.
By securing the ombudsman's funding, we are securing a safe, independent and expert avenue for those students. We are ensuring that a student in a regional campus, an online course or an offshore program has the same access to justice as a student on a main, metropolitan campus. We are ensuring that international students, who may fear repercussions for speaking up, have a confidential, no-wrong-door pathway to raise concerns, and we are ensuring that the ombudsman can continue to publish findings, guidance and sector education that prevent harm before it occurs.
The evidence is already clear. Where the ombudsman engages, institutions improve. Where its recommendations are implemented, policies change, training is enhanced and cultures shift.
That is the kind of systemic change that keeps students safe and supports their success. This bill sits within a broader reform agenda to make higher education fairer, safer and more responsive to students' needs. Through the universities accord reforms, we have introduced the National Student Ombudsman alongside the National Higher Education Code to Prevent and Respond to Gender-based Violence, expanded free university bridging courses and committed to new regional and suburban university study hubs.
We have strengthened demand driven, needs based funding to support students from low socioeconomic backgrounds, First Nations students and those studying in regional areas. The ombudsman is a cornerstone of that architecture. It provides the accountability mechanism that ensures other reforms deliver in practice, not just on paper.
Without it, students would have fewer levers to pull when institutions fall short. With it, we have a continuous feedback loop. Complaints inform guidance, guidance informs practice and practice improves outcomes.
I acknowledge that some providers will have questions about the precise design of the levy. That is why the bill explicitly requires regulations to set out the calculation method following further consultation with the sector. The department will continue to work closely with universities, private higher education providers, student representatives and other stakeholders to finalise a methodology that is transparent, predictable and fair.
If there are concerns about capacity to pay, particularly among smaller or specialist providers, those are exactly the sorts of issues the regulatory design process is intended to address. The government's objective is not to impose an undue burden but to ensure that the ombudsman can continue its work without relying indefinitely on general revenue. A well-designed levy achieves both.
The National Student Ombudsman is working. It is resolving the majority of complaints it receives, improving institutional practice across the sector and giving students—especially those who have been silenced in the past—a powerful, independent voice. It costs students nothing, but it makes a profound difference in their lives.
This bill ensures that difference endures. It transitions the ombudsman from establishment funding to a sustainable, fair, cost recovery model, with the levy commencing on 1 January 2027. It keeps the service free for students, places the costs where they belong—on the higher education providers who benefit from its existence—and embeds the ombudsman as a permanent feature of Australia's higher education landscape.
For the sake of students who have waited decades for this service, for the universities that are already improving because of it and for the integrity of our entire tertiary system, this bill deserves the House's support. I commend the bill to the House.