Tertiary Education Legislation Amendment (There For Education, Not Profit) Bill 2025: proposed restrictions on for-profit higher education providers

The short answer

Tertiary Education Legislation Amendment (There For Education, Not Profit) Bill 2025: proposed restrictions on for-profit higher education providers

The Tertiary Education Legislation Amendment (There For Education, Not Profit) Bill 2025 is a private senator's bill introduced by Senator Jacqui Lambie that would amend Australia's tertiary education laws to place restrictions on for-profit higher education providers. The bill was introduced alongside a companion bill, the Remuneration Tribunal Amendment (There For Public Service, Not Profit) Bill 2025. It is currently before the Senate.

This is a federal system guide. State constitutions, parliaments and local-government laws can allocate comparable functions differently.

The useful question is not only “what is the rule?” but also “who administers it, which document controls it, and when might it change?” That distinction prevents an accurate general explanation from becoming wrong advice in a particular election, chamber or policy setting.

Evidence review

What the bill proposes

The Tertiary Education Legislation Amendment (There For Education, Not Profit) Bill 2025 is a private senator's bill that would amend Australia's tertiary education laws to impose restrictions on for-profit higher education providers. The bill's title — 'There For Education, Not Profit' — signals its core purpose: to redirect Commonwealth funding and student places away from for-profit entities and toward not-for-profit and public education providers.

The bill amends the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011 (TEQSA Act) and potentially the Higher Education Support Act 2003 (HESA) — the two principal pieces of Commonwealth legislation governing higher education in Australia. TEQSA is the national regulator for higher education, and HESA governs the provision of Commonwealth funding to higher education providers, including through the Commonwealth Grant Scheme and HELP loans.

Under the current framework, for-profit higher education providers can be registered by TEQSA and approved under HESA to receive Commonwealth funding and offer FEE-HELP and HECS-HELP loans to students. The bill seeks to restrict or remove this access for for-profit entities, reflecting the policy position that public funding for higher education should be directed to public and not-for-profit providers.

The bill's companion legislation — the Remuneration Tribunal Amendment (There For Public Service, Not Profit) Bill 2025 — addresses the same thematic concern in the context of public sector remuneration. Together, the two bills represent a coordinated push by Senator Lambie to limit the role of profit-driven entities in publicly funded services.

Evidence review

The for-profit higher education sector in Australia

For-profit higher education providers have been a growing presence in the Australian tertiary education landscape over the past two decades. Unlike Australia's public universities — which are established under state and territory legislation and operate on a not-for-profit basis — for-profit providers are companies operating under the Corporations Act 2001 that seek to generate returns for shareholders.

For-profit providers range from large publicly listed companies to smaller private colleges. They offer courses spanning business, information technology, health sciences, education, and creative arts. Many have been approved to offer FEE-HELP loans, allowing their students to defer tuition costs to the Commonwealth. This access to the HELP scheme means that when students do not repay their loans — whether due to low income, death, or other circumstances — the cost is ultimately borne by the Commonwealth budget.

The sector has been subject to significant controversy. The collapse of several large for-profit vocational education and training (VET) providers in the mid-2010s — most notably the VET FEE-HELP scandal — led to billions of dollars in unpaid student loans and prompted major regulatory reforms. While those reforms primarily targeted the VET sector, they raised broader questions about the appropriateness of profit-seeking entities accessing uncapped Commonwealth student loan schemes.

In the higher education (as distinct from VET) space, major for-profit providers have included entities such as Torrens University (owned by Strategic Education, Inc.), Kaplan Business School, and various smaller private colleges. The sector has argued that for-profit provision increases student choice and drives innovation through competition.

Evidence review

Key amendments proposed

The bill would amend the TEQSA Act and HESA to restrict the ability of for-profit entities to be registered as higher education providers and to access Commonwealth funding. The precise mechanism varies depending on the specific provisions of the bill, but the general approach is to introduce a requirement that providers must be not-for-profit entities to be eligible for certain forms of Commonwealth support.

Under the bill, the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency would be required to consider the profit status of applicants for registration. For-profit entities would face either a bar on registration or restrictions on their ability to access Commonwealth Grant Scheme funding and HELP loans.

The bill would also likely include transitional provisions for existing for-profit providers and their students, to avoid disruption to students currently enrolled at for-profit institutions. Such provisions are typical in legislation that changes provider eligibility and would allow existing students to complete their courses under current arrangements.

The companion bill addressing the Remuneration Tribunal suggests a broader philosophical approach: that entities with a profit motive should not be the primary recipients of public funds intended for essential services. This framing connects the tertiary education bill to a wider crossbench push for greater accountability in the use of public money.

Evidence review

Sponsor and political context

The bill is sponsored by Senator Jacqui Lambie, leader of the Jacqui Lambie Network and senator for Tasmania. Senator Lambie has consistently advocated for greater accountability in the use of public funds and has been a vocal critic of what she characterises as 'corporate welfare.' Her political brand is built on a populist, anti-establishment platform with a particular focus on veterans' affairs, integrity, and the cost of living.

The 'There For Education, Not Profit' branding of the bill reflects Senator Lambie's communication style — direct, slogan-driven, and designed to resonate with voters who are sceptical of private sector involvement in public services.

As a private senator's bill, the proposed legislation does not represent government policy. The Albanese Labor Government has not indicated support for removing for-profit providers from the higher education system. Labor's higher education policy, as articulated through the Australian Universities Accord process, has focused on expanding access and increasing attainment targets rather than restructuring provider types.

Evidence review

Impact on students and the higher education sector

If enacted, the bill would represent a significant restructuring of the Australian higher education landscape. For-profit providers currently enrol tens of thousands of domestic and international students. The bill would either force these providers to restructure as not-for-profit entities or exit the Australian domestic higher education market (at least in respect of Commonwealth-supported places and HELP loans).

For students enrolled at for-profit providers, transitional arrangements would be critical. Without adequate transition provisions, students could face disruption to their studies. Typical transitional approaches in Australian education reform include 'teach-out' arrangements where existing students can complete their course at their current provider, or provisions allowing students to transfer their credits to a public or not-for-profit provider.

The bill would also affect competition in the higher education sector. Proponents of for-profit provision argue that private providers increase competition, drive innovation in course delivery (particularly online and flexible delivery), and provide alternatives to the traditional university model. Critics argue that the profit motive creates incentives to reduce educational quality, inflate enrolments, and target vulnerable students.

Common questions

Before you rely on the answer