New university levy will cover Australian complaints body’s costs

Australian universities and colleges will be charged a yet-to-be determined levy to fund a mandatory complaints resolution service, with fines for institutions that miss payment deadlines and regulatory crackdowns on those that do not pay at all.

Legislation introduced into parliament will transfer the A$11 million (£6 million) annual running costs of the National Student Ombudsman from the federal government to educational institutions, under a “cost recovery model” that is yet to be finalised.

Education minister Jason Clare said the ombudsman, a feature of the 2024 Action Plan Addressing Gender-based Violence in Higher Education, had been “a long time coming”. The service has received about 7,700 “student contacts” since its establishment in February 2025 and has resolved more than 6,000 of them, he said.

“Before the establishment of the National Student Ombudsman, [these complaints] had to be made through a web of individual university complaint systems or state or territory ombudsmen – or no doubt in many cases not made at all,” Clare told parliament.

“That’s why the work of the ombudsman is so important. [Students] have…access to an effective trauma-informed and independent service focused on them. The levy will ensure students can continue to access [it] free of charge and that the costs of providing this critical service are borne fairly by higher education providers.”

The method for calculating the levy, payable from next year, will be outlined in regulations following consultation with the sector. Penalties will apply for late payment. Failure to pay will constitute “breach of a condition of registration” and may result in “enforcement action” by the higher education regulator, an explanatory document says. Individual college administrators will be liable for the levy if their registration is cancelled.

The ombudsman, which adds to a growing list of regulatory costs shouldered by the sector, was introduced after surveys found that sexual harassment and assault were rife in universities. The survey results combined data on incidents occurring within universities’ sphere of control, such as on campus and during field research, with information on abuse in the broader community, such as on public transport and in students’ homes.

The ombudsman’s initial annual report showed that 2 per cent of the complaints it had fielded were related to gender-based violence. The organisers of the latest National Student Safety Survey, which began on 31 August, say they will ensure that the results allow for granular analysis.

Clare said the ombudsman provided universities with a valuable advisory service on “best practice” for complaints handling. “Eighty per cent of the higher education providers surveyed by the ombudsman say that they are implementing systems and making service improvements following [its] advice,” he told parliament.

The ombudsman sometimes publishes details of its investigations as an educative service for the sector. Its latest such report concludes that a Sydney college’s refusal to refund the tuition fees of a student whose onshore application for a visa had been rejected, and its pursuit of fees from another student who “withdrew due to a change of mind”, was “unfair, unreasonable and appears contrary to the law”.

“[While] higher education providers must undertake careful fiscal management in a complex operating environment…it is not open to [them] to decide not to adhere to the law…to mitigate their financial risks,” the report says. “In recognition of the inherent power imbalance between students and higher education providers in these situations, legislative frameworks impose specific obligations on providers to safeguard students’ rights.”

The college accepted the ombudsman’s findings but branded them “one-sided” for considering “only the student’s perspective”. Allowing students “to withdraw at any time without reasonable financial consequences would place an unsustainable financial burden on providers”, it said.

The college added that the first student had stopped communicating with it after it asked him to confirm his intention to leave Australia when his visa expired. “The student did not depart Australia after the visa refusal,” it added. “[He] remains in Australia and appears to have subsequently enrolled or continued studying with another provider.”

The second student had not provided notice of his withdrawal until after payment deadline, it said.

john.ross@timeshighereducation.com