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??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 ¨C issues that involve academic judgement, critics pointed out.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

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.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

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.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

Its resources could be tied up addressing ¡°ancient grievances¡±, Professor Norton warned. ¡°Universities have to work within their budgets,¡± he?. ¡°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 ¨C and blasted universities¡¯ handling of antisemitism, sexual assault and course quality ¨C 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.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

john.ross@timeshighereducation.com