Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

There are real problems in higher education. No-one should pretend otherwise. There are concerns about quality, student experience, workforce shortages, artificial intelligence, antisemitism and social cohesion on campus, international student numbers, access for students in the outer suburbs and in the regions, and the position of private higher education providers. The coalition recognises that a future government may need stronger tools to respond to these problems. For example, powers over international student allocations could be used to align international education with national capacity in housing, infrastructure and services. Powers attached to public funding could, if appropriately designed, be used to require stronger standards on antisemitism, social cohesion and institutional accountability. A more flexible pathway for Commonwealth-supported places could assist private providers in priority workforce fields, and place allocations could be used to support regional and outer-suburban opportunity where it is genuinely needed. Those are legitimate objectives, but good objectives don't automatically justify unlimited powers. The question for this parliament is whether the bill gets the balance right between national stewardship, institutional autonomy, student choice, accountability and parliamentary oversight.

On the evidence already received by the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee, there are significant reasons to doubt that the bill has that right balance. Universities Australia, the peak body for Australia's universities, says:

The Bill shifts significant decision-making authority to the Minister and the ATEC, with many of the framework's most important features left to Guidelines, non-disallowable instruments and administrative decision-making rather than primary legislation.

Universities Australia supports the broad direction of reform but recommends passage only with substantial amendments.

QUT, my old university, makes the point even more directly. It says:

The case for the Bill's funding reforms is clear. The case for these extraordinary Ministerial powers has not been made.

QUT warns that a measured delay to improve the bill would be preferable to legislation that permanently weakens university governance, autonomy and parliamentary scrutiny.

UniSC, in my electorate of Fisher, also provided a submission. They are in general support of the bill's objectives but they also warned that a centrally managed system may fail to keep pace with local population growth, workforce need and student demand. Now, as one of the members for the Sunshine Coast, many students tell me—in fact, I was at Chancellor College just recently—that moving away to study under this government's cost-of-living crisis is just not a realistic option. Travel, accommodation costs, caring responsibilities and lost income mean that, if a local place is unavailable, university may simply be unavailable to them.

UniSC rightly argues that decisions cannot be made solely from Canberra using lagged data; they must reflect local knowledge, local demand and the needs of high-growth communities just like mine. If we want more young people in Fisher to study locally, uniSC needs the certainty to plan, invest and grow with our community. I want to send a shout-out at this opportunity to Helen Bartlett, the vice-chancellor. She is doing a great job at uniSC as she embarks, on behalf of the university, on developing our very own medical school that the member for Fairfax and I worked so very hard for 10 years to develop with Griffith University. The time has now come for UniSC to have its own medical school, and the member for Fairfax and I will be continuing to push that very hard.

Most of the submissions raise legitimate concerns, including excessive ministerial discretion, insufficient transparency, weak parliamentary oversight, threats to institutional autonomy, rigid allocation settings or risks created by the overenrolment penalty regime. The bill's treatment of the Australian Tertiary Education Commission deserves particular attention. Labor presents ATEC as an independent steward, but independence from the sector is not the same thing as independence from the executive government. ATEC commissioners can be removed by the minister where their performance has been unsatisfactory for a significant period—terms which are not defined. ATEC cannot employ its own staff. It relies on APS staff made available by the department. It cannot independently engage contractors or consultants. It must have regard to ministerial priorities, and it remains subject to ministerial directions. These things should be ringing alarm bells in the broader education community.

More concerningly, the bill creates additional avenues for the minister to influence international student allocations, including by specifying matters with which ATEC must comply and by directing it to consider varying provider-level allocations. It is a body which may administer decisions but is structurally constrained by the executive by design—by this Labor government's design. The international student provisions require particularly close examination. Universities Australia states in its submission that the minister should set the broad framework but ATEC should make provider-level decisions independently according to transparent criteria. It also argues that the international allocation framework should be subject to independent statutory review. The coalition will examine those proposals seriously before we reach a position on these.

There's also a fundamental practical concern with the new managed-growth model. Under the current system, universities can enrol more students than the Commonwealth directly funds. They do not receive additional Commonwealth funding for those students, but they can retain the student contribution. That system is not perfect, but it has allowed universities to respond to genuine demand and educate more students using the same taxpayer contribution. This bill treats that flexibility as overenrolment and imposes a financial penalty. It changes a capped-funding model into a capped-places model. Why should parliament penalise an institution that educates more Australian students for the same taxpayer contribution? Universities have warned that the likely response will be more cautious offers, higher entry thresholds, early closure of applications and fewer opportunities for capable students.

The bill's fiscal claims also require a clear explanation from the minister. The minister's public pitch has referred to $3.6 billion over a decade and 230,000 additional places, yet the explanatory memorandum refers to $2.5 billion in additional net funding over 11 years from 2024-25 and 200,000 additional commencing domestic students over the decade. Those are not trivial differences. Where does the additional $1.1 billion come from? How did an additional 30,000 places appear? Why do the MYEFO papers refer to $2.5 billion over 11 years while the minister now promotes $3.6 billion over a decade? Was the new funding included in the budget? Was it being offset, cut or repurposed to pay for it? What protections exist against a funding announcement today becoming an unfunded liability tomorrow?

The Parliamentary Library's Bills Digest notes that the $2.5 billion MYEFO measure was partly offset through $16.4 billion in repurposed funding and efficiencies over 11 years. That makes transparent scrutiny of the government's new claims all the more important. The bill's needs based funding provisions also need closer scrutiny.

The principle of better support for First Nations students, low SES students and regional delivery is sound. The coalition supports genuine opportunities for Australians who have historically been locked out of higher education, but the practical operation of the scheme will turn heavily on ministerial guidelines, eligibility criteria, modifier amounts, regional classifications, conditions of grant, and expenditure rules. Adelaide uni says important policy settings are left to guidelines, and recommends a legislative requirement for genuine consultation before they are made or varied.

This is exactly why the committee process matters. Parliament should not be asked to sign a blank cheque and discover the real scheme later, in guidelines drafted behind closed doors in ministerial offices. The coalition will approach this bill constructively but not casually. The coalition will make its final decision after the work of the committee is complete. Our standard will be straightforward: does this bill expand opportunity without centralising— (Time expired)

Joanne Ryan (Lalor, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

The name of this bill, the Universities Accord (Opening the Doors of Opportunity) Bill 2026, says it all. It speaks to this Labor government's intent and it speaks to this Labor government's motivation. It says everything about what we stand for. We stand for opening doors of opportunity. We stand against baking in disadvantage. I think this is a fitting title. At its core, this legislation is about ensuring that opportunity is given to all those across the country who have the capacity, the talent and the ambition to reach for it.

Australia has never lacked talent. Communities like mine in Lalor prove that every single day. It's a community where people don't lack ambition, and they deserve every opportunity to realise it. This bill recognises that simple truth because we on this side of the House understand the impact that education can have on an individual's life. We understand how it changes lives. We understand how it can change communities. The member for Gellibrand sits here with me in the chamber tonight. He and I between us represent the city of Wyndham. Nowhere is it more tangible than to see what it means when people aspire and are supported, and how people's ambitions can be lifted just by being in classrooms with people who strive to, and want to, have more.

This Labor government understands that. We understand how that ambition and aspiration can change a community, can change a school, can change our country and can change an economy. That's why this government aspires for a higher education level for all Australians, not just because it's good in itself—although it is—but because our economy will demand it. We need to have more educated Australians into the future, to ensure that we can maintain the economy that we're so proud of.

Two years ago we released the final report of the Australian Universities Accord. Since then, we've implemented more than 30 of the accord's 47 recommendations. From cutting 20 per cent of HECS debts and introducing paid prac—and then extending that as late as this week—to doubling the number of university study hubs, Labor's vision is one that recognises that Australia's future prosperity depends on the education system we build today. I stand by that—in early education, in school education, in TAFE, in free TAFE and in higher education. That means a higher education system that is larger, smarter, fairer, focused on the future and open to all.

Debate interrupted.