The modern world has a bureaucracy problem. When confronted with an issue, the typical response from government is to create a new bureaucracy to solve it. Consequently, political action results in an ever-increasing demand for interventions, which cause damage faster than society can repair it.
The legislation to create a National Student Ombudsman, passed in a deal with The Greens, along with 27 other bills on the last sitting day of Parliament this year, is one such intervention. The law establishes a complaints-handling mechanism with the capacity to conduct investigations and make recommendations to higher education institutions.
Those in favour of the new Ombudsman are attempting to give students the opportunity to air grievances against the institutions, and believe the office dealing with the complaint should have some distance from the university in question, to ensure an impartial and fair hearing. It is a noble sentiment.
However, the concept of a complaints-handling mechanism outside the university system fails in principle and in practice, because it adds yet another layer of bureaucracy to the higher education sector, and will almost certainly do more harm than good. This is because it is impossible to ensure the plan will have the desired outcome and its scope will remain focused and targeted.
The National Student Ombudsman could easily become an administrative nightmare for universities, all the while doing little to serve students.
The higher education sector already has a bureaucracy problem. In recent decades the number of bureaucrats employed by Australian universities has expanded rapidly. Institute of Public Affairs’ research found that since 1996, the number of university non-academic staff has increased by 72 per cent, while the number of teaching and research staff has increased by just 47 per cent. Non-academic staff numbers have grown 70 per cent faster than academic staff, and now cost Australia’s elite tertiary institutions – the Group of Eight (G8) – more than $3 billion in salaries each year.
The creation of a National Student Ombudsman only compounds this problem, and suggests politicians have given little thought to the likelihood that the cure will be worse than the disease.
The Ombudsman’s main functions include dealing with complaints about universities, conducting investigations, and providing advice and training to universities. All these functions will require universities to respond to requests and recommendations and will lead to the further expansion of university administrative departments. In turn, this will add to the compliance burden on lecturers, teachers, and students.
The scope of the Ombudsman’s responsibilities is far too broad, with students able to make a complaint about ‘any action’ provided it is not related to employment, the exercise of academic judgement, or the VET sector.
This broad discretion is open to abuse and weaponisation. For instance, the scope of an investigation could easily be taken beyond genuine problems faced by students to reflect the personal grievances, concerns, or biases of the Ombudsman. This could be further exacerbated by the fact that the person appointed to this role has an incentive to find problems to justify their position. There is an inherent danger that the position could be used to advocate for activist causes, sidelining the genuine problems faced by students.
This reform must also be seen in the broader context of the free speech crisis at Australian universities. The growing culture of censorship at universities has been tracked by the IPA since 2016. Our research shows there was a 117 per cent increase in hostility towards free speech across all Australian universities between 2016 and 2023. Of Australia’s 42 universities, 90 per cent are rated red for implementing policies that are hostile to free speech.
Bureaucracy is the enemy of freedom of speech. The fewer rules, regulations and protocols there are, the safer speech and viewpoint diversity on campus will be. And of course, once these types of government bodies are set up, they are almost impossible to remove.
The famous assertion by former US President Ronald Reagan still rings true: ‘Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this Earth!’
Politicians must remember they are the elected representatives of the people, sent to parliament to make decisions. Yet, increasingly, they seem willing to hand power to unelected bureaucrats. It’s worth asking, when was the last time a new government program or agency fixed more problems than it created? Programs like the National Disability Insurance Scheme and offices like the eSafety Commissioner don’t bear scrutiny. Bureaucracy is the problem not the solution.
Brianna McKee is a Research Fellow and National Manager of Generation Liberty at the Institute of Public Affairs.
