The Commission does make some relevant points about education:
"Digital communications can provide scale (say in university education) allowing for expansion of services at low marginal cost." (Volume 1, Page 21).
"Reforming university funding arrangements would facilitate expanded access for Australians to tertiary qualifications. It would also facilitate more competition and address the unintended consequences that result from university efforts to manage the course mix — a response to the poor incentives embedded in the current funding model." (Volume 1, Page 29).
"Notwithstanding the strong growth of higher education, VET remains the largest provider of formal post-school training, serving more than twice the number of university students. Given this, overcoming systemic flaws in VET design is important." (Volume 1, Page 30).
"Loan fee arrangements should also be equalised across the tertiary sector, levied on all students regardless of type (that is, extended from fee-for-service VET students and non-university higher education students to include subsidised VET students and university students). The loan fee rate should also be lowered reflecting application to a broader base of students." (Volume 1, Page 88).
One obvious way to increase the quality of university education, by requiring those teaching at universities to be qualified to teach, appears to have been missed by the commission.
The commission appears to be in the business of writing large, infrequent reports which make the same recommendations which were ignored previously. This doesn't appear very productive, if measured by the improvements made as a result of the reports. The commission might want to send their staff for some training in how to formulate and present recommendations in a way they will be accepted. This is a skill I help university students with.