National Student Ombudsman Levy Bill 2026; Second Reading

French argued the ombudsman provides a necessary independent avenue for students when internal university processes fail, particularly for serious issues like gender-based violence. French highlighted that the service had resolved 78 per cent of contacts and that 80 per cent of providers were implementing improvements based on its guidance. French supported the cost-recovery model starting in 2027, emphasising that students would retain free access while the sector contributes to the service that benefits it.

Ryan praised the establishment of the ombudsman as a significant achievement for campus safety, driven by student advocacy and the Universities Accord. Ryan supported the levy but called for greater transparency regarding the calculation methodology and potential exemptions, noting concerns from Universities Australia about the link between student numbers and service demand. Ryan also criticised the government for failing to address the financial impacts of the Job-ready Graduates policy on universities.

Cook strongly supported the bills as part of a broader agenda to make higher education accessible, safe, and accountable. Cook detailed the ombudsman's success in resolving complaints and driving systemic improvements across providers. Cook emphasised that the cost-recovery model ensures long-term sustainability without passing costs to students, aligning with the government's commitment to reforming the tertiary sector.

Witty framed the legislation within the context of expanding educational opportunity and reducing financial barriers for students. Witty highlighted the ombudsman's role in providing independent, trauma-informed support, citing high resolution rates and positive feedback from providers. Witty argued that the levy is a fair contribution from the sector, which benefits from improved governance and public confidence, while keeping the service free for students.

Roberts described the ombudsman as a critical service that replaced a fragmented complaints system with a single, national, independent pathway. Roberts noted the high volume of contacts and the positive impact on institutional practices, with many providers implementing changes. Roberts supported the transition to a cost-recovery model as a sustainable approach that aligns with the principle that the sector should contribute to the accountability mechanism serving it.

Comer drew on her experience as a student representative to emphasise the importance of accessible complaint mechanisms for vulnerable students. Comer highlighted the ombudsman's effectiveness in resolving disputes informally and driving systemic improvements across universities. Comer supported the levy as a fair way to secure the service's future, ensuring students do not bear the cost of accessing independent support.

lead

Garland argued that the bill secures sustainable funding for the National Student Ombudsman, ensuring it remains free for students. Garland noted that the ombudsman had received 7,690 contacts and resolved 6,016 matters by August 2026, with 93 per cent of complaints resolved through informal processes. Garland emphasised that the levy represents a cost-recovery model for providers, shifting from government-funded establishment costs to sector-funded operations. Garland linked the ombudsman to broader efforts to address gender-based violence and improve accountability in higher education.

Coffey argued that the ombudsman provides essential independent support for students facing unfair treatment or safety concerns. Coffey highlighted that 80 per cent of providers reported implementing system improvements following ombudsman engagements. Coffey stressed the importance of trauma-informed processes for students reporting sexual violence or discrimination. Coffey connected the bill to the government's broader implementation of Australian Universities Accord recommendations.

Burnell stated that the levy ensures the ombudsman's long-term viability while remaining free for students. Burnell noted that the government would underwrite $44.3 million over four years to cover operating costs, which would then be recovered from providers. Burnell emphasised that the cost-recovery model is not intended to generate additional revenue for the government. Burnell argued that the ombudsman strengthens trust in the higher education system by addressing systemic issues.

Hill summarised the debate, noting the bill establishes the legislative framework for the levy and collection arrangements. Hill confirmed that the levy calculation method would be determined through regulations after further consultation with the sector. Hill reiterated that the funding model operates on a strict cost-recovery basis. Hill commended the bills to the House, linking them to broader government efforts to improve equity in higher education.