Over my lifetime, Australia has seen a huge rise in the number of people participating in tertiary education.

Since the 1980s the percentage has more than doubled and today, it is more common to have a post-school qualification—a degree or certificate or diploma—than not. 

The private sector has been a very important part of that success.

It is hard to remember that up until the Howard Government and its significant reforms to tertiary education, choice for students meant university, TAFE or nothing.

Choice was only about which publicly funded, government-controlled entity you would access.

Going to a private provider meant paying full fees immediately, shutting out many potential students and knee-capping the private sector.

Howard-era reforms such as allowing private higher education providers to access FEE-HELP and allowing private RTOs to competitively tender for public money changed the rules of the game.

Today the tertiary sector continues to be dominated by large publicly funded institutions, but the expansion of private providers into the market over the past couple of decades, has brought genuine competition and more options for students.

It has prompted the whole sector to wake up.

I am proud that it was a Liberal government that gave this sector its wings. 

CHALLENGES TODAY

I know that for many of you in this room, the question on your mind will be whether your wings are about to be clipped again.

That is a real question that you should be asking.

Despite the platitudes of some colleagues in the Government, there is a creeping agenda to wind back competition and deprioritise the dynamism and innovation of the private sector.

Don’t listen to what they say, look at what they do.

The evidence is in the policy changes the government is prioritising, and the way they are de-prioritising the independent tertiary education sector. For example: 

– ATEC, a new non-regulatory bureaucracy tasked with “stewardship” – which appears to be a nice word for centralised direction of who is permitted to teach, what they are permitted to teach, and whether they are permitted to grow. 

– Focusing major policy reforms on universities, rather than the whole tertiary sector;

– Repeatedly exempting public universities from negative regulatory signals they are sending to the sector – as we are seeing in the Bill about integrity measures that is being debated today – all while seeking broad and relatively unconstrained Ministerial powers to discipline providers.

These are not the actions of a government that wants to see a thriving, independent tertiary education sector.

I want to make clear at the outset that enterprise, competition, and a diverse tertiary education sector remain core values on my side of the Parliament.

We value the work you do.

And it points to a broader philosophical point about support for liberal democratic values, open and free markets and support for the private sector. Part of the magic of capitalism is the way that it drives innovation, dynamism and efficiency in the allocation of resources.

Of course, there are instances of market failure and there is a clear place for sensible regulation.

But the general philosophical instinct to trust people – rather than governments – to work out the best way to do business and spend their money has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system.

Winston Churchill famously said that “democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried”. Well the same is true of capitalism.

Increasingly in this place we are seeing this government promote narratives against private industry, against business and against profit.

That is not surprising. The very first objective listed in the Labor National Constitution is this:

The Australian Labor Party is a democratic socialist party and has the objective of the democratic socialisation of industry, production, distribution and exchange,…Our philosophy is different.

We believe in people making their own choices. We support business.

Profit is not a dirty word.

For small businesses, profit is the business owner’s wages. It is the thing they take home at the end of the day to put food on the table.

And across the board, it allows investment and growth, and fills market needs to creates options for ordinary people.

The story of the private sector – of risk-taking, innovation and dynamism – is a fundamentally human story. And it is one that should be celebrated.

INTEGRITY MEASURES BILL

I want to take the time to make a few comments on the Bill that is before the Parliament right now in relation to integrity measures.

This is the Education Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2025.

This was a Bill that was debated in the last parliament and ultimately was withdrawn by the government.

And it was reintroduced in this Parliament with the contentious student caps withdrawn, and with additional measures thrown in.

My approach to this – which is the same approach I take across the portfolio – is to be clear on the principle and the values, responsive to the stakeholders, constructive in the approach and pragmatic on the detail.

On the principle and the values – we are for integrity in the tertiary education sector – and I know those in this room are too.

On the responsiveness – I have heard submissions across the board.

And on the detail – that is why I moved a range of practical amendments.

Among other things, these will:

– Remove retrospectivity in relation to information gathering around education agent commissions;

– Protect competition in the sector by carving out registered higher education institutions from the two-year domestic delivery requirements;

– Place safeguards around the Minister’s power to make instruments listing courses for automatic suspension or cancellation; and

– Subject the Bill to an independent review.

These are amendments that we think are important, and materially improve the Bill.

I hope to see them passed today.

INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS

And while we’re talking about values and education, let me say something about international students.

I don’t think we as a country are taking advantage of the opportunity that international students provide to become advocates for Australia, its culture and its values.

There is something good about Australian culture.

At the risk of mangling the words of the great philosopher Leo Strauss: If all cultures were created equal, then cannibalism would just be a matter of taste. 

Democracy. Rule of law. Freedom of worship. Freedom of speech.

These are wonderful values.

They are part of what makes this place so attractive all around the world, and they are fundamental to citizenship in this great country.

Every person who makes the citizenship pledge says:

I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people,

whose democratic beliefs I share,

whose rights and liberties I respect, and

whose laws I will uphold and obey.

We should be proud of our democratic beliefs, our rights and liberties, and our rule of law.

And we should not be afraid to teach those values to others.

I would like to see international students in Australia learn about democracy, rule of law and Australian values as a standard and uncontroversial part of studying in this country.

Let those who study here receive a top-quality education, be treated well, and learn about our culture and the things that make this country so wonderful.

And when those students return to their families and communities, let them take those ideas with them.

Let Australian values be part of our export to the world.

UNIVERSITIES

Australia’s publicly funded universities have strengthened Australia

enormously through their history.

I want to see our universities flourishing.

But we have to be honest that the tax-payer funded model of big institutions is expensive and that in too many cases, our universities are in the midst of a teaching, funding and identity crisis.

The challenges facing Australia’s tertiary education sector, are not simply about funding structures, but about the core of their purpose. Free inquiry, debate, research, teaching and learning.

We have seen an erosion of these fundamentals of education at some of the large, public universities over recent years.

Alarmingly, antisemitism has been able to gain a foothold on too many of these campuses too.

As a parliamentary inquiry into antisemitism on university campuses found earlier this year, the committee “witnessed brazen incidents of antisemitism go without consequence or leadership by some of our university vice chancellors.”

Our universities have some soul-searching to do.

If they are not willing to do that, it is the government’s responsibility to require them to do so.

To my knowledge, antisemitism does not have a foothold in your institutions. Instead of playing political games, you are focused on the task at hand – teaching and learning.

I think of the Avondale College trained nurses cared for my children when they were born.

I think of the students from Excelsia College, with whom I share a building at my electorate office at Pennant Hills.

The contribution of your sector to Australian life is evident everywhere.

The tertiary education sector in this country is better when choice is real, competition exists and innovation can gain a foothold.

Just as is the case with schools or hospitals, the presence of the private sector and the competition it generates should help the government-funded models to be better. As you innovate, the whole sector learns.

BOYS’ EDUCATION

My counterpart Jason Clare likes to talk about tertiary education as a system, not a sector.

And he is right, as far as it goes.

The education system a system, in the sense that each part links with and flows into the next, starting with preschool and finishing with the tertiary education, the workforce and society at large.

Changes to preschools and schools will have downstream impacts on universities.

And sometimes, the problems we are seeing downstream are symptomatic of issues earlier in the pipeline.

This type of systems-based thinking should be central to the way we approach the education portfolio.

It is no secret that, in our schools, we are spending more money than ever before but our performance as measured by metrics like NAPLAN and PISA is behind where it was twenty years ago.

I have had university vice-chancellors in my office telling me that they, as higher education institutions, are increasingly forced to pick up shortfalls in literacy and numeracy so that their students can successfully bridge the gap into university.

That is extraordinary.

It contributes to a growing sense that something is not right with our schooling system, and the stories we are hearing from those vice chancellors are symptoms of something deeper.

It is time for us to look at boys’ education.

Before saying something about boys education we need to first celebrate the extraordinary success of women’s education.

In 1996, similar proportions of men and women had degrees, with slightly more men than women – around 10%.

By last year, 37% of women between the ages of 15 and 74 had a degree at bachelor’s level or higher, compared with 30% of men in the same bracket.

If you drill down into the 25-34 age bracket, 41% of men but 54% of women have a bachelor’s degree or higher.

It is fair to say now that not only are Australians better educated in general than they were 30 years ago, but that women are better educated than men. The successes we have had in women’s education are massive; it is a public policy achievement of which Australians should justly be proud.

But as I alluded to a moment ago, while the success in women’s education are rightly celebrated, I am concerned about trends and outcomes we have been seeing in relation to education for boys.

It is now time for us to look at boys’ education.

And in raising this issue, I want to give full credit to my colleague Zoe McKenzie, who has been relentless in prosecuting the issue of boys’ education for months and months.

And when we do so – we must have the maturity to have that discussion in a way that preserves and celebrates the achievements we have made in girls’ education, and which does not somehow frame boys’ education as being opposed to or against the education of girls.

It is not a zero-sum game.

It is not a gender issue – it is a societal issue.

Boys trail girls in every NAPLAN literacy assessment – reading writing, spelling, grammar and punctuation – in every age group.

Average achievement of boys falls short of girls in every NAPLAN domain except numeracy.

NAPLAN data reveals that boys are twice as likely to score in the lowest performance bands in literacy.

By year 9, in writing, there is a 37-point gap between the performance of boys and girls – which roughly equates to 1-2 years of learning.

There are significant disparities in school retention rates for boys and young men. The 2024 data shows that the school retention rate in years 10-12 sit at 83.5% of female students, but only 76.4% of males.

In 2015, 168,000 young men started their higher education journey. By 2024, that number had dropped to 158,000. Australia’s population increased by 3.4 million over the same period.

This is symptomatic of a broader problem.

Further vocational education is also important – and understanding how boys transition effectively in post-school training, especially apprenticeships.

We want young people to have all these options and to ultimately succeed. Boys are more likely to be disengaged from school than girls, and poor academic achievement, and to leave school early.

We need to understand also the role of behaviour and classroom management – are our classrooms great places for boys and girls to learn?

I am calling on the government now to support a parliamentary inquiry into boys’ education.

I am calling on the government to join with me, in a bipartisan way, to examine the issue with respect, with dignity, based on evidence and in the interests of finding solutions for all Australian families.

Boys should not be left behind by our education system.

The inquiry should have the time and resources to go wherever it needs to go to get to the bottom of this issue.

On the Coalition side, it should be led by my colleagues Zoe McKenzie and Sam Birrell.

This is an issue in which all of us – including everyone in this room – has an interest.

ATEC

When it comes to regulation, I believe that we should always be striving to shrink and not grow the red tape burdens you feel.

Regulatory environments respond to circumstances. The pendulum swings when there are indications that something is amiss, but should swing back again when trust is restored.

Yesterday, we saw the introduction of legislation to establish the Australian Tertiary Education Commission (ATEC).

It is another Labor bureaucracy that has emerged from another Labor review. It will cost $54 million – without a dollar going to students.

From first principles, there are unresolved questions and I look forward to reading the Bill and receiving a Government briefing.

What is the policy problem that ATEC is intended to solve?

We know that it is intended to provide policy expertise in relation to higher education. Why doesn’t that expertise exist in the Department of Education already? How will establishing another, parallel public sector body solve it? It is meant to provide “stewardship” to the sector. What does that mean?

What difference does “stewardship” make on the ground?

What difference does it make to families and students – other than consuming public funding which they provide through their taxes?

Will the experience of university students change in any significant way because of this new “stewardship”?

And why do we need another government body overseeing the tertiary sector?

In the tertiary education sector it is not uncommon for providers to report to 7 different government bodies already. What is one more layer of

bureaucracy going to achieve?

ATEC will:

“provide Government with strategic advice for the long-term future of Australia s higher education sector, including on the role of non-university higher education

providers…”

It will also “oversee allocation of international student commencements for all higher education providers, where directed by Government.”

For everyone in this room – this will be your reality. ATEC will provide advice to government on your future.

It will determine your allocations.

In many respects, it will determine your future – but it will not be accountable to the voting public in the way that governments are.

CONCLUSION

Let me conclude by saying this to the people in this room. We support you. You play an integral role in Australia’s tertiary education sector.

You innovate in teaching and learning.

In some cases you provide courses that the public sector doesn’t.

You produce graduates that the economy needs.

You add a competitive element that drives the entire sector to do better.

Time and time again, I see your members doing excellent work.

These stories of your institutions and your graduates must be told and they must be celebrated.

Thank you.