For the third time in a week, a government-dominated Senate committee has brushed off Australian universities’ objections about a controversial reform proposal.
The Education and Employment Committee has rubber-stamped a bill to create a national student ombudsman (NSO), dismissing universities’ protests that the new agency’s operations could undermine their academic freedom obligations.
“The legislation explicitly sets out the limitations on the scope of the powers of the NSO to ensure that academic freedom remains solely the purview of the institutions,” the committee’s report says.
Submissions to the committee had highlighted an ambiguity in the ombudsman’s operating rules. Its remit excludes matters of “academic judgement” but includes university administration and academic misconduct – issues that involve academic judgement, critics pointed out.
The bill attempts to resolve this quandary by empowering the education minister to issue a “legislative instrument” adding academic judgement to the ombudsman’s scope. But this could impinge on universities’ legal and regulatory requirements to ensure academic freedom, observers noted.
“There is no case for political interference in matters of academic judgement,” Queensland University of Technology insisted in a submission.
The committee rejected such arguments in a one-paragraph rejoinder, saying the existing overseas student ombudsman had operated without encroaching on academic freedom. “The committee sees no reason why such a conflict would arise,” its report says.
It also shrugs off concerns about the ombudsman’s workload, saying the agency will be equipped to handle the volume and sensitivity of complaints “in a professional and appropriate manner”.
Universities Australia said the NSO had originally been designed to address matters of gender-based violence and sexual harm. But its remit had “significantly” expanded, “raising concerns about how well [it] can fulfil its intended purpose”.
Australian National University policy expert Andrew Norton said the proposed scope was “too broad”. While state ombudsmans’ areas of responsibility were generally confined to administrative matters, the NSO could review almost “any action” with no time limit on the complaints it handled.
Its resources could be tied up addressing “ancient grievances”, Professor Norton warned. “Universities have to work within their budgets,” he blogged. “They cannot do everything they would like to do or what some students might expect.
“While the ombudsman might solve problems for some students, its recommendations could leave other students and university staff worse off. This bill suffers from this government’s characteristic bureaucratic overreach.”
The committee’s report offers no recommendations to resolve such issues. Nor does a supplementary section from opposition senators, who took credit for the new agency’s establishment – and blasted universities’ handling of antisemitism, sexual assault and course quality – but ignored their warnings about flaws in the ombudsman’s operating rules.
The committee was similarly dismissive of universities’ concerns about international enrolment caps and the administration of new payments for students on practicums, recommending passage of the related bills with few or no amendments.
