How international student commencements will be allocated, international education expertise among Commissioners, and engagement with the independent higher education sector are three of the key concerns raised in submissions to the inquiry into the legislation to establish the Australian Tertiary Education Commission (ATEC).
Submissions into the Universities Accord (Australian Tertiary Education Commission) Bill 2025 (ATEC Bill) have now closed and, to date, 54 have been uploaded to the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee inquiry webpage. Universities, peak bodies, councils and academies, individuals, unions and government agencies were just some of those who put forward submissions commenting on the legislation.
What the draft legislation says about international education
To recap, the key reference in the draft legislation to international education is that one of ATEC’s functions will be “to allocate a maximum number of international student commencements to ESOS registered providers at the direction of the Minister”. The sector expects that this will occur through the current New Overseas Student Commencements (NOSC) and visa priority process, at least for the time being.
The Minister for Education, Jason Clare has previously stated that ATEC will also be responsible for agreeing new mission-based compacts with individual universities, which will outline the numbers of domestic and international students “in line with the Government’s strategic direction”.
Key international education-related themes
The following analysis considers the key themes raised in submissions relating to international education.
International student commencement allocations
Submissions raise concerns about the ambiguity in the legislation around the setting of international student commencement allocations, including the current wording “at the direction of the Minister” and whether the Minister will set the total allocations for ATEC to negotiate and distribute. The Group of Eight (Go8) argues that maximums set per provider appear inconsistent with section 71(2) of the legislation which states that “the Minister must not give directions in relation to: … (c) a higher education provider.”.
ATEC’s role in determining international student commencements is ‘opaque’, says the Independent Tertiary Education Council Australia (ITECA) and it is not clear if the “determination of the higher education number will be provided by the Minister to the ATEC as an overarching sector number with ATEC to specify a number for each institution, or if the Minister will specify those numbers”. Torrens University seeks amendments to the bill that “limit ministerial direction at the provider level where possible” and Navitas recommends amendments that “more clearly demarcated the respective roles of ATEC and the Minister”.
Andrew Norton, Professor of Higher Education Policy at Monash University agrees that the current wording is ambiguous and goes as far as to recommend removal of the section of the bill giving ATEC the responsibility to allocate maximum international student commencements. Norton argues that international student caps are an important public policy issue and “should not be settled by delegating a broad power to the minister or ATEC”.
The current bill also includes no penalty provisions and UA says that the legislation should make clear what mechanisms ATEC will use to ensure providers adhere to their maximum number of international commencements.
“As written in the legislation, the only penalty lever available to the ATEC would be to reduce a provider’s Commonwealth student places. UA is opposed to any compliance mechanism involving penalties on domestic funding.”
Methodology
Concerns about the methodology and mechanisms used to set international student allocations were raised across multiple submissions.
“ATEC must be required to give priority to a review of the current NOSC methodology which will include extensive stakeholder consultation and provision of a transparent rationale for a new methodology,” says the International Education Association of Australia (IEAA). ITECA also recommends greater clarity and transparency in the setting of allocations, that should also be subject to consultation with peak bodies.
This theme is supported by Universities Australia (UA), arguing for “a clear framework with principles governing the bases for allocations”. UA says that a clear methodology “must be transparent and co-designed with the sector to ensure that adverse policy implications are avoided”. Macquarie University and Torrens University repeat the calls for transparency as well as for review mechanisms in their submissions.
UA is also concerned that maximum numbers should only be set at provider level, not course level, and should allow for flexibility in enrolment management with a tolerance for exceeding enrolments due to normal fluctuations.
Independent higher education/VET providers
Over 160 independent higher education providers and 920 independent CRICOS-registered VET providers received a NOSC allocation in 2026, and the current proposed governance structure of ATEC does not adequately represent this sector, says IEAA. It recommends proven expertise with independent education providers among ATEC Commissioners, a recommendation that is also supported by IHEA and ITECA.
NOSC methodology must not differentiate based on provider type, says the Independent Higher Education Australia (IHEA), calling for fairer principles for NOSC allocations. It says that they “must not operate as de facto caps and the methodology should not favour public universities, as is currently the case”.
ITECA takes it a step further, saying “it is difficult to see how ATEC could fairly and effectively perform an allocation role while its core remit (negotiating mission-based compacts with Table A and B institutions) excludes the majority of higher education providers”.
IEAA says that the current NOSC methodology is a “blunt instrument” for independent higher education providers, which are also not able to access almost all of the NOSC exemptions available to public universities.
International education expertise on the Commission
The current draft legislation allows for three Commissioners: a Chief Commissioner, a First Nations Commissioner and the third Commissioner. Several submissions recommend that this be increased to between five and seven, with specific expertise for some Commissioners. IEAA argues that a Commissioner with expertise in international education is crucial given the size and complexity of the sector and this is supported by submissions including the Innovative Research Universities (IRU), Navitas, Australian Catholic University and Per Capita.
Other themes covered across the submissions include:
- Clarification on ATEC’s role in relation to international education policy frameworks.
- A need to understand how the ‘missions’ in mission-based compacts will vary from non-profit to for-profit providers.
- Timing of when international student commencement allocations are set.
- Consultation with students as part of ATEC’s mission, including international students, with the International Students Representative Council of Australia (ISRC) recommending the establishment of a standing student advisory mechanism.
- The ISRC also suggests public-facing indicators of levels of international fee reliance with annual reporting.
- Incentives to encourage international students to study in regional locations.
Beyond international education
Beyond international education, submissions generally support the establishment of ATEC, but say that it must be an independent, trusted and well-resourced body capable of providing long-term stewardship of Australia’s tertiary education system. They stress that ATEC’s credibility will depend on it operating genuinely at arm’s length from government, being transparent in its decision-making, and embedding meaningful, ongoing consultation across the full diversity of the sector.
What next?
The Senate Committee is due to hand down its report on 26 February. As has been demonstrated in recent legislative processes in the international education space, the existence of Senate Committee recommendations is no guarantee of changes to government policy or legislation. The Koala will be watching for the Committee’s report with interest.
