Renee Coffey (Griffith, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

The universities accord drew on more than 820 public submissions and set out a plan to change those figures. The Albanese Labor government has acted on more than 30 of its 47 recommendations in full or in part. We made Commonwealth supported university places demand driven for all First Nations students who meet the entry requirements. We created the National Student Ombudsman and a national code for universities to prevent and respond to gender based violence. We expanded free university preparation courses, opened new suburban and regional study hubs, expanded Commonwealth paid prac and established the Australian Tertiary Education Commission.

We have also reduced the cost of gaining a qualification. We cut HELP and other student loan balances by 20 per cent. Nationally, that removed more than $16 billion from the debts of more than three million Australians. In Griffith, almost 32,000 people have a HECS debt, and, thanks to Labor's reforms, they received an average cut of $6,392 each. We've also capped annual indexation at the lower of inflation or wage growth, lifted the repayment threshold and introduced a fairer marginal repayment system. For someone earning $70,000, compulsory repayments have fallen by around $1,300 a year. That is real relief for young workers managing rent, groceries and other daily costs while building their careers.

Marcia, a West End local, told me why she took on a large debt to study psychology. She wants to help people, especially those doing it tough. One of her sisters became a teacher because she wanted to support the next generation. They did not choose those paths for the money. They chose them because they care. Marcia said cutting student debt and lifting the repayment threshold recognised working-class people who gain an education and give back through their work.

Her words capture the values behind these reforms. If we ask people to train for jobs our communities need, we should make it possible for them to complete that training without carrying an unfair burden. These measures make it easier to enter tertiary education, complete a placement and manage the cost after graduation.

This bill now reforms the funding beneath the university system itself. Under managed growth funding, the Minister for Education will set the total pool of fully funded Commonwealth supported places. The independent Australian Tertiary Education Commission, ATEC, will allocate those places to universities and other eligible providers. Each provider will receive a core student load and a growth allocation—the core protects its funded base. The growth allocation allows ATEC to direct new places towards students and communities with the greatest need.

The new system will add 16,000 places in each of the next three years. From 2030, it will add 19,000 places each year. If demand from low-income or regional students exceeds the national pool, ATEC can ask the minister to increase it. This gives the system a way to respond when more eligible students seek a place. The change also includes a transition period for providers. Universities with lower enrolments can access a temporary funding floor through to the end of 2031.

For 2027, ATEC expects to allocate about 20,000 more Commonwealth supported places to universities that currently teach students without the matching Commonwealth contribution. This gives universities greater funding certainty. It also gives capable students a clearer promise. If they meet the entry standard, the system should have a funded place ready for them.

More places will get students through the university gate, and needs based funding will help them stay. Universities will receive extra funding for students from low socioeconomic backgrounds, First Nations students and students at regional campuses. The funding will follow the student. The more eligible students that a university enrols, the more support it receives. The bill sets a base equity payment of $1,535 per student and a base regional payment of $1,398. Both amounts will rise with indexation each year. Under earlier programs, universities received an average of about $600 per eligible student—last year. The new base payments will more than double that amount in some cases. Universities can use the funding for tutoring, mentoring, academic support, scholarships and emergency grants. Regional providers can meet the higher costs of delivering courses across longer distances and smaller campuses.

That support can take many forms. It could provide a tutor for a first-year student who has fallen behind. It could pay an emergency grant that keeps a student housed through a family crisis. It could connect a first-in-family student with a mentor who helps them understand university life. These are practical supports, but their effect can be profound. One timely grant can stop a student from withdrawing. One trusted mentor can help someone believe that they belong. Financial access creates opportunity. Steady and personal support helps turn that opportunity into a qualification.

I am of Labor because I believe in the primacy of education and its power to transform lives. As a qualified secondary-school teacher and a mother to two young boys, I know education is the key to every single Australian's future. As our Minister for Education said, 'It is the great equaliser in an unequal world.' I believe in the importance of civics education and media literacy, in upholding our democracy and in the importance of teachers to our learning outcomes. Whatever school a family chooses, their child deserves the best education Australia can offer. The Australians who will shape our country in 2050 are sitting in our classrooms today. Somewhere in Australia today is a student who could become an outstanding nurse, engineer, teacher or filmmaker. They may live in a regional town, face financial pressure or become the first in their family to attend university. Our responsibility is to ensure opportunity reaches them to unlock their potential.

Reaching the accord's target of 80 per cent tertiary attainment by 2050 starts with the investments that we make now. This bill invests another $3.6 billion in higher education over the next decade. It will fund an estimated 230,000 additional commencing university students. It will create more places and give students stronger support to complete their studies. Education gives people the skills to build secure lives and serve their communities. I have seen this time and again through the many years of my career. It gives Australia the teachers, nurses, engineers, carers and other skilled workers it will need. The decisions we make in this parliament will shape the choices available to children who have not yet even started school. We should want every one of those children to grow up knowing that their ability will be recognised, their work will be rewarded and the doors of opportunity will be open to them.

Australia's future will be built by the people that we educate today. This bill invests in their education, in their potential and in the opportunities open to every generation that follows.

Allegra Spender (Wentworth, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to the Universities Accord (Opening the Doors of Opportunity) Bill 2026. I acknowledge that managed growth was a recommendation of the Universities Accord, but I am cautious about measures in this bill not because there isn't a problem to solve but because it creates a centralised model and places unprecedented responsibilities with the minister and the Australian Tertiary Education Commission. I support the amendments proposed by the member for Curtin, formed by the universities themselves. These amendments would moderate the powers given to ATEC and the minister, striking, I believe, a better balance between stewardship and central control. I note that it is on the basis of these amendments being adopted that the sector has broadly given qualified support for this bill. But, once again, it's very disappointing that this House is being asked to speak to and likely vote on this bill before we've had a chance to review the outcomes of the Senate inquiry.

Australia's higher education sector is a world leader. Nine of our universities rank in the world's top 100. Each year, more than 200,000 international students choose to study here—many more apply than we take—making it our largest export that we don't dig out of the ground. Nearly 400,000 domestic students also start a degree each year. This sector has given us solar-power breakthroughs, world-class quantum research and unicorns like Atlassian. But I believe it is not on the right track, and many are concerned about its licence.

At some universities, international students now outnumber domestic students two to one. Job-ready Graduates, a failed policy, means many students pay more than they did a decade ago for certain degrees. From 2027, students in the highest pay band will pay $56,000 for a degree, and it will take many more of them more than a decade to pay it off. What are they getting for that money? Many class sizes are growing, teaching is increasingly casualised, student satisfaction is falling, employers are telling us their graduates aren't work ready and firms like the big four major law firms are cutting graduate intakes as AI takes over junior roles. It is no wonder that students and parents are asking, 'Is university really worth it?' On top of this, governance failures and a poor record on student safety and inclusion in recent years have further eroded public trust.

The Universities Accord sets out to address the sector's sustainability. It set a target of having 80 per cent of working-age Australians with a tertiary qualification by 2050, 55 per cent of those with a university degree. That means doubling the capacity from 860,000 university places today to 1.5 million by 2050. The accord's answer was managed growth—central coordination to stop universities scrambling for enrolments in a race to the bottom. To be fair to the universities, some of this scramble isn't their fault; it's a consequence of incentives. Job-ready Graduates rewards exactly the wrong behaviour. Arts, commerce and law are less capital intensive and relatively easy to scale. As a result of this failed policy, they also happen to attract the highest student fees. For years, the government has asked for more of universities while funding them less per student, pushing them to lean on international fees to make up the difference. Most people in the sector accept that something needs to change. But the question, really, for this bill right now is: does it set us up for the changes that this sector needs to make?

There are three main things in this bill: it changes how universities are funded, from a capped grant to a system based on total student numbers, with the minister able to set or lift the total allocation pool; it gives the minister the power to cap international student numbers; and it legislates needs based funding for low-income, First Nations and regional students. The old cap system let universities manage their own intake, make early offers and absorb surprise demand without second-guessing the funding consequences. Yes, it let arts and commerce degrees overexpand, but it also gave universities room to move and room to innovate. This bill removes that room. Andrew Norton put it this way:

Policies introducing both greater bureaucratic control and enrolment growth seem to be at least partially contradictory.

He expects total enrolments will still grow, just not as much as they could under a more flexible system.

This model asks the minister to forecast course-by-course demand six months out, locking in allocations every June. Norton warns that this will lead to a rush of revisions over the Christmas holidays as we adjust for realised demand.

Handing the minister power over the total allocation pool, with ATEC deciding how it's split between the universities, risks student choice too. If Jobs-ready Graduates taught us anything, it's that students don't easily switch preferences just because of a signal from government. Our universities aren't viewed as perfect substitutes, and nor should they be. I understand that we don't want overflowing classes in metropolitan areas at the expense of the regions, but we do want universities competing on quality, not resting on guaranteed allocation.

This is probably my greatest concern about the bill—in this direction. I want to see greater innovation in the university sector, I want to see greater competition between the universities to provide outcomes for students through the education that sets them up and I want to see the universities compete on that. I think that is more important now than ever, particularly with the development of AI and how that is going to influence the workforce. This innovation in the university sector is more important than ever. I am concerned about elements of this bill that take away some of the incentive to innovate and the incentive to differentiate, which I think should be part of the overall strategy for the universities. I think there are other ways that the government could be thinking about this, including addressing issues such as the breadth of courses or the breadth of research that every single university needs to provide. I don't know that that is necessarily appropriate. Greater specialisation in our universities could be a significant opportunity for our university sector to seek excellence in particular areas, rather than having to have broader responsibilities across a breadth of areas. That is the concern I have in terms of where this government is going. I understand the rationale, but the question, really, is: are we going to drive a university sector that competes to be the best in the world for its students and for research, using some of this piece?

The second piece is about international students. Again, this bill gives the minister the power to set the international-student allocation pool, with ATEC deciding how it is divided. I believe we need a more evidence based approach to international students across the board. It's not just applicable to the university sector; it also applies very much to TAFE and other sectors.

The issue I have is that the government has failed to put forward a comprehensive migration strategy. It has failed to talk to the Australian community about where it is expecting our migration and our population to go over time, where it's going to come from, and to build the social licence about the choices that it is making. That is true also in the international student space. I do have concerns about the department or the minister having control of these areas when we are completely missing a broader narrative that the Australian population is willing to back around where our migration system is going.

Finally, it comes to needs based funding, which is a part of the bill that I support. The accord was clear. Lifting attainment means making universities genuinely accessible to everyone. The bill legislates needs based funding for regional, First Nations and low SES students. That is welcome, and I support that without reservation. But more is needed. The accord also flagged that student income support has been eroded by the cost of living faster than almost any other safety net. I understand the budget pressures this government is under. I simply ask that this one stays on the agenda as unfinished business alongside the overdue overhaul of the Job-Ready Graduates scheme as well.

I want to see a university sector that prepares students for work while respecting their right to choose their own path. I want universities to compete and to specialise rather than all offering the same homogeneous experience. I want to see a sector that works far more closely with industry, with more work integrated learning for students and real recognition for academics who engage in public policy and businesses through consulting, not just those who publish the most papers.

We have an issue of productivity in this country. We have excellent research in our universities, and we are failing, in some cases, in that translation. I think that part of the problem is the silo that universities operate in compared to the business world and other parts of our economy. We should be doing everything we can to deepen those connections between universities and other parts of our economy.

I will join the chorus of critics arguing that this system needs reform, but this bill points towards a model that is heavily centralised, potentially anti-competitive and, in some places, self-contradictory. It leaves issues on the table, including the failed Job-Ready Graduates scheme, and I don't see enough here to convince me that the long list of problems that we are all aware of in the university sector will be fixed through this model. I urge the government to consider the member for Curtin's amendments to this bill, principally seeking to increase oversight of ministerial decisions, given the unprecedented powers, and preserve the autonomy of universities and higher education providers to do what they think is going to make the best difference to their students.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm pleased to speak in support of the Universities Accord (Opening the Doors of Opportunity) Bill 2026. I am surprised to see how few speakers on this bill are from Liberal and National Party electorates in regional and rural areas. This is the sort of bill that would help people in the communities that they represent, like regional Queensland, who struggle to get to university and who really need their regional universities funded better, and would help make sure that those kids get every opportunity in life. I'm very surprised that there are so few speakers from the conservative side of politics speaking on this legislation.

Labor governments have always been about opening the doors of opportunity. I grew up in a working-class family in Ipswich. My dad was a cleaner at a meatworks, and my mum was a shop assistant. I was the first person directly in my family ever to go to high school, let alone university. It was the teachers in year 12 at Bundamba State Secondary College which gave me the aspiration, the inspiration and the opportunity to go to university. I'm the first person from my high school to ever study law at university. I would not be here today in this place if not for the interest and support of my teachers and for the opportunities given to me, a working-class boy from Trumper Street in East Ipswich, at the back of a flood affected house, in the back of a school in a battling suburb in Ipswich. Education raised my expectations. It gave me a chance to be in this place. It gave me a chance to build, along with, at first, my fellow business partners and then my fellow directors and shareholders, a multimillion-dollar business as a lawyer in the Brisbane CBD.

Education changes lives, and it certainly changed mine. Education lifts people up, including kids in regional and rural communities and in working-class communities like the one I grew up in Ipswich. On the night of the last election, the Prime Minister talked about how Labor governments opened the door of opportunity and how this government will open it just a bit more. And that's what this bill is about—opening the doors of opportunity wider for more Australians.

The Albanese Labor government has introduced this legislation to help more Australians get to and through university. The bill makes two major reforms to our university system and how we fund our universities—not for us. Australian workplace agreements and Work Choices and the defunding of universities, should those universities not take up that pernicious system of Work Choices, were inflicted upon us by those opposite back in the Howard days. We have a different approach to universities. If the member for Wentworth is unhappy about our more centralised approach, I believe government has a role to play in public policy to drive the university sector and drive education to make sure it's available to everyone, not just in wealthy electorates but in regional and rural electorates like mine.

Firstly, this bill establishes a managed growth fund to build a bigger and better and fairer education system that gives more Australians the chance to go to university. Secondly, it puts in place needs based funding so young people from disadvantaged backgrounds will get the support they need to succeed at university.

This is the seventh piece of legislation introduced by our government to implement the universities accord. It's part of a broader response to that accord, and it means an extra $3.6 billion in funding for universities over the next decade. Specifically, what has it done? Firstly, on managed growth funding, this year more students are starting university, and we're building on that by funding more university places. Over the next three years, there will be an additional 16,000 places for students in the system each year. From 2030, this will increase to 19,000 additional places each year. Over the next decade, we expect an additional 230,000 students commencing university studies. We're funding that growth and giving the Australian Tertiary Education Commission, or ATEC, the tools to manage it.

As part of this bill, the government will set the total number of Commonwealth supported places, and ATEC will allocate those places to universities. We think that's the best approach, not a situation of competition like the member for Wentworth talked about. The ATEC will also have the power to allocate additional places where it thinks they are needed to meet the demands from students from disadvantaged backgrounds and from regional and remote communities. That's why it bewilders me that there are not enough and not more speakers from conservative regional and rural communities across Queensland and elsewhere speaking on this bill. This bill will effectively mean places for those students will now be uncapped.

Moving on to needs based funding, we know the Gonski model for student funding in primary schools and secondary schools provides schools with extra funding based on where they are located and the needs of the students they educate. Students who come from disadvantaged backgrounds receive additional support and so do schools in regional and remote communities. The Minister for Education put it well, I think, when he said this bill is like Gonski for universities. I agree. Universities will receive more funding as they enrol more students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, First Nations students and students studying at regional campuses. At the end of the day, if you get the marks and you've got the skills, you've got what it takes. You deserve a place. I think that's the Australian way. These reforms mean we'll guarantee you a Commonwealth supported place, and we'll make sure you get the support you need when you get there.

This is similar to the reforms we're implementing to fix the funding of our schools, as well as tying those reforms to help more kids finish high school and then go to university or TAFE. Needs based funding will provide universities with additional resources for tutoring, mentoring, academic assistance, scholarships and emergency financial support for those students. That's important because we know that kids from regional Australia, kids from disadvantaged backgrounds, are about twice as likely as other students to drop out of university in the first year at university.

What does this mean in practice for those kids from disadvantaged backgrounds? Whether they grow up in Ipswich or Esk in my electorate of Blair, for example, it will more than double the amount of funding to help them finish their degree—with things like extra academic support, tutoring and mentoring—from $600 a student to more than $1,500. The bill sets out the base equity amount of $1,535 and the base regional support at $1,398, with both amounts indexed each year. Guidelines will set out how the base amount is to be applied to each student based on which cohort they're in.

In addition, the bill sets out a framework for the ATEC to exercise its existing function to allocate international student places where the Minister for Education makes an international allocation pool determination, something that those opposite have steadfastly opposed. It also makes small technical amendments to modernise information sharing between the Commonwealth Ombudsman, the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency and ATEC to inform their work as appropriate.

Specifically, the bill amends the Higher Education Support Act 2003 and other acts. First, it will embed a new managed growth funding system to support growth in domestic students—in particular, those from low-socioeconomic backgrounds and regional and remote communities. Second, the bill will establish demand driven, needs based funding to support students from those backgrounds. And, third, it will formalise the role of ATEC in allocating Commonwealth supported places to higher education providers. In addition, it sets out a framework for ATEC to exercise its existing functions. It's worth noting these critical structural reforms have been the subject of extensive stakeholder consultation, and universities and peak bodies have indicated they're supportive of the new model. And why wouldn't they be?

We know that under Bob Hawke and Paul Keating the number of Australians finishing high school jumped from around 40 per cent to almost 80 per cent, which was nation building in terms of our economy and in terms of equity. These reforms are the next step in our efforts to build Australia's human capital. The universities accord set a target that, by 2050, 80 per cent of the workforce will have a TAFE qualification or a university degree. The only way to do this is to break down the barriers that stop many young people getting to university, certainly from regional and rural communities and from low-socioeconomic backgrounds. The talent is there, but the opportunity is not. As a nation, we need to build capacity and spread opportunity across the country. We need to do more to guard against the 'tyranny of low expectations', as former prime minister and education minister Julia Gillard put it, and to ensure every school leaver in this country is given the tools for success in life.

These reforms build on the Bradley review reforms that Julia Gillard put in place during her time in government, and they will mean more young people from poorer families and from the regions and the bush get a crack at university. We want to significantly increase the number of university students from areas in the outer suburbs and the regions—for example, in my electorate, around Ipswich and the Somerset Region. We're already well served by two university campuses in my electorate via the University of Southern Queensland, or UniSQ, as it's commonly called. There's one at Ipswich and one at Springfield. I congratulate UniSQ on their 20-year anniversary for their Springfield campus. I attended a wonderful celebration for that on Saturday.

Both campuses have done so much to improve access to education in the fast-growing Ipswich region and beyond, in Logan and in the regional areas such as the Scenic Rim, the Somerset Region and the Lockyer Valley. The University of Southern Queensland is contributing to our economic development and our local workforce needs. Indeed it is contributing in your electorate too, Deputy Speaker Buchholz, in the Lockyer Valley. With University of Southern Queensland campuses in Toowoomba at one end and in Ipswich and Springfield, that whole corridor is well served. It means that young people from disadvantaged backgrounds and from regional and rural communities can get the opportunity to go to university. Why? Because they can see the campuses there. They can see the opportunity and they can seize that opportunity—not just see it but seize it. That's really crucial for kids from the Somerset Region, from the Lockyer Valley, from the Scenic Rim and from Ipswich because they are disadvantaged. There is no doubt they're disadvantaged.

Establishing that campus at Springfield was so critical. It's an integral part of the greater Springfield area. Establishing it was the vision of Bob Sharpless and Maha Sinnathamby. I congratulate both of them for the work they've done in establishing Springfield City Group's education city vision. It really has grown in line with the master planned community, bringing together education, industry, health and civic life. I dropped in to the Ipswich campus of UniSQ the other day to talk to some of their allied health students about the government's announcement that we're expanding paid prac to 10 additional courses like physiotherapy, occupational therapy, speech pathology and pharmacy. That is on top of the cuts to student debt that we've done, which were so popular in the last campaign, I might add.

The students were very happy with the government providing real cost-of-living relief and helping them train for some of the most important jobs in our country and especially our region. I think it's fantastic, by the way, that there's a health focus at the University of Southern Queensland Ipswich campus, and I commend them for their interest in establishing there a centre for palliative care with Ipswich Hospice so that allied health students, medical students and the like can train from that campus in palliative care. What a great initiative. I commend it. It's something that I'll be fighting for in terms of funding, and I know this is very important from my local community as it's so fast growing.

Now, we don't want to be a country where your chances in life depend on how rich your parents are or we happen to live. Certainly, I grew up in a tough background and a tough environment, but education offered me the opportunity to get ahead in life. We don't want to be in a situation where your race, your religion, your location or your postcode dictate your chances in life. That's not what we want to be as a country. We want to be a country that believes in the fair go. Legislation like this is what this is about. It's about what we hope to achieve, what we as a country believe is important. It's no good criticising and nitpicking if you come from a rich area. People who come from the big capital cities at times don't understand how tough it is in regional areas.

For universities, the idea of going to university, if you're a kid growing up in Toogoolawah, is a massive change in life. If you're living in Laidley, Boonah or Esk, it is a huge change. You have to uproot yourself to go to university. It is a major, major change. Legislation like this will majorly affect them and, importantly, assist them. It will mean that those universities will have greater opportunity to offer courses and more funding to assist those students. It will mean more students and more funding. This is a big structural reform. It will build a bigger, better and fairer higher education system. It will change lives and it will change the country.

I thank the minister. He made the point that almost 50 per cent of young Australians in their 30s today have university degrees. That is not the case in my community, and we need it to be. I want a time when a kid who lives in Ipswich or a kid who lives in Kilcoy aspires to university and gets that chance. Bills like this and funding like this will make a difference.

Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Universities Accord (Opening the Doors of Opportunity) Bill 2026. I support the central purpose of this bill—to give more Australians the opportunity to attend university and to give students from disadvantaged backgrounds the support they need to succeed once they get there. Our most valuable national asset is our people and training and educating Australians must be at the centre of any serious plans to improve productivity, fill critical skills shortages and build the industries and the Australia that we need and want. The Australian Universities Accord makes the scale of that task clear. By 2050, at least 80 per cent of Australia's workforce will need a university or vocational qualification, up from around 60 per cent from the accord report. Today, close to half of Australians in their 30s have a university degree, but the rate is roughly half that for people from low-income families and regional communities. Talent is not confined to particular postcodes, families or schools. Opportunities should not be either.

This bill is an important step towards a larger and fairer system, and I commend the government for progressing it, but it must create a funding and governance system that is fair, transparent, durable and protected from political misuse regardless of who occupies the ministerial office or government. Under the new managed-growth funding system, the minister will set a total allocation pool and the Australian Tertiary Education Commission, ATEC, will allocate core and additional growth places to universities and other eligible providers. The government expects this model to support an additional 230,000 places for commencing university students over the next decade, backed by an additional $3.6 billion in funding. The bill also establishes need based funding for universities enrolling students from low-socioeconomic backgrounds, First Nations students and students studying at regional campuses. These are welcome reforms. I also welcome the greater long-term coordination through ATEC and mission based compacts. Australia needs an expert body that can take a national view of workforce needs, regional access, course capacity and financial sustainability.

My central concern with this bill is whether it gets the power balance right between the discretion of the minister, ATEC and individual providers and universities. Government has a legitimate role in setting national priorities and ensuring public funding delivers public value. Universities must be accountable for quality, access, student safety and responsible financial management. But stewardship is not control, and I am concerned at the overreach that's being provided to the minister here.

Universities need the autonomy to fulfil their mission, teach and conduct research, invest in capability and respond to their communities without the overreach of the minister. This autonomy protects free inquiry, research integrity and the ability to challenge conventional wisdom. Questions remain among Australia's tertiary sector as to whether this bill gets that balance right. The concern is that this bill will allow the minister to impose additional funding conditions on an individual university outside the mission based compact process. Those conditions would be separate from and additional to the mission based compact process. This is a broad and opaque power that could overlap with ATEC's responsibilities.

ATEC was established as the expert statutory steward of the system, responsible for negotiating mission based compacts and allocating most Commonwealth supported places. Separate ministerial conditions could cut across that work and, we know, could way too quickly become politicised. The government may say the current minister would use this power responsibly—fair enough. But that's not the test that parliament should be applying. The test is not whether the current minister would exercise the power responsibly. Parliament must legislate for every future minister and possible government, and we must ensure that there is that proper separation and not an overreach of ministerial power. I simply don't support the government being so involved in the day-to-day operation of our tertiary sector. Higher education expert Andrew Norton has warned that establishing the legal limits of this power may require universities to take the government to court, something they may be reluctant to do while relying heavily on government funding. It would also be such a waste of resources and funds.

The bill lets the minister set the overall national pool, and ATEC allocates places between institutions. As an expert statutory body, ATEC can consider each provider's capacity, regional role, financial sustainability, student demand and contribution to Australia's skill needs. But decisions about how an institution distributes its allocation across particular courses should remain with that institution. This should not be subject to ministerial overreach. The bill does not clearly prevent the minister or ATEC from making allocations at a course, field of study or other subprovider level. It doesn't take Einstein to see the concern that, if a minister or ATEC reaches right down to the allocation of courses, field of study or other provider level, a government of the day with a particular ideology or view in relation to certain areas can absolutely then use the lever of funding and allocations to reach into and predetermine these areas.

My amendment, which I will be discussing with the minister, therefore draws a clear boundary. Government may determine the national total and ATEC may allocate places between providers, but universities must retain the responsibility for the mix of their own courses. Neither the minister nor ATEC should be deciding how many international students an individual university may enrol in a particular course. Course level controls would intrude directly into academic decision-making and prevent universities from responding flexibly to student preferences and changing workforce needs. We have seen the impact of such decisions in the Job-ready Graduates scheme for domestic students, a horrendous program that the government has yet to remedy despite being in government now for four years.

The bill nevertheless gives the minister broad power to prescribe matters that ATEC must follow or consider when allocating international student places. Without adequate limits, that power could be used to target a particular institution or influence a number of students enrolled in a particular course. Course level controls are contrary to institutional autonomy and would undermine universities' ability to respond to student preferences in place based planning. Canberra should not micromanage what individual universities teach.

Universities Australia has warned that the interaction between the bill's course designation powers and ATEC allocations could weaken the existing protections for continuing CSP students. Although ATEC must consider a provider's capacity to meet its continuing student obligations, the bill should put the matter beyond doubt. A subsequent designation or allocation decision must not remove the CSP status of a student who has already commenced their course. The course selection of enrolled students must be protected and respected. I really urge the government to clarify this question. No student who begins a course in a Commonwealth supported place should lose that status part way through their degree because a minister has later designated the course differently or because ATEC changes a provider's allocation. Students plan their lives and finances on the offer they accept. Government policy should not move the floor beneath them midway through their studies.

The bill's needs based funding model has the potential to become one of the most important legacies of the accord, but success can't be measured by enrolment numbers alone. It should be measured by whether underrepresented students are actually supported to access university, remain engaged and ultimately graduate. That work begins long before a student arrives on campus. Universities need to work with schools, families and communities to build aspiration, explain pathways and help prospective students seek higher education as a realistic option.

The 2050 Alliance has rightly argued that needs based funding and outreach should not operate as disconnected programs. Both serve the same objective, increasing participation among communities that remain underrepresented in higher education. The amendments that I will propose will allow ATEC to publish an institutional equity strategy aimed at widening access for Indigenous students, students from low socioeconomic backgrounds and other equity cohorts recognised in the needs based funding guidelines. Universities could use funding received under this part of the bill to undertake activities implementing that strategy, including appropriate pre-enrolment outreach. This would give providers greater flexibility to invest in coordinated, evidence based and multiyear programs, instead of treating outreach and enrolled student support as entirely separate tasks. You don't get to an enrolment just by accident; we need to have that outreach program as well. We will not close participation gaps by waiting until a student arrives on campus or assuming that they're just going to make their way from disadvantaged or remote and regional areas to an enrolment in a campus. The outreach program is important. We must build the pipeline well before that point and then support students all the way through to graduation.

Finally, this bill must not be presented as a completion of the Universities Accord agenda. The JobReady Graduates scheme continues to distort student contributions and punish students for choosing particular fields of study. I voted against it when it was presented as legislation under the Morrison government in the 46th Parliament. I continue to urge the government—it's been four years—to repeal it and fix this broken system. The JobReady Graduates package doubled the fees for arts, humanities and social work and attempted to pick winners by using student debt as a behavioural lever.

From 2027, students in the highest contribution band are now expected to pay more than $55,000 for a standard three-year degree. That is insane. A country that claims to value critical thinking, communication, culture, social work and public service should not price those disciplines as though they are indulgences. They remain core to the workforce and the skills matrix that we need for the future. The government's 20 per cent student debt reduction and HELP repayment changes were meaningful and welcome, but the underlying JobReady Graduate structure remains. A university education should challenge a student intellectually, not cripple them financially.

The ambition behind this bill is worthy and urgent. Australia needs more skilled people and a higher education system that reaches talented students locked out by geography, disadvantage or circumstances. Managed growth funding and needs based funding can help deliver that, but opening the doors of opportunity must not also open the door to ministerial interference. The minister can set national direction, ATEC can independently make provider level allocations and negotiate mission based compacts, but universities should remain autonomous institutions accountable under clear and transparent law. Students must have certainty that the place they begin in when they commence their study is the place they can complete, and the bill can open the doors to opportunity wider. We must build a system that is strong enough, fair enough and independent enough to keep those doors open for generations to come and make sure that it is immunised from political interference.

Carina Garland (Chisholm, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

In my first speech in this place, I shared how I am forever grateful for the education—the keys to the kingdom, as Paul Keating put it—that I received and acknowledged that education changes lives. It changed mine, and it changes so many lives for people right across communities in this country. I've also previously acknowledged the transformative impact that education has had right across Australia, particularly higher education. Those words that I shared in 2022, when I first came to this place, including the words around my passion and strong conviction for ensuring we have a robust and independent higher education system, were true then, and they are still true today. We need a higher education system that values and fosters intellectual curiosity and supports people to think, to create new ideas and to ask the tough questions. That's the kind of higher education system that is essential to the future of Australia.

I'm really proud to stand on this side of the House and be part of an Albanese Labor government that absolutely values higher education. I've said in this place before that, when you value something, you invest in it, and Labor has taken our responsibility seriously when it comes to investing in higher education. It's why our Labor government got on with future-proofing our higher education system as soon as we had the opportunity to do so upon forming government. We wasted no time at all. Led by Minister Clare, our government got to work.

The Australian Universities Accord was the biggest and broadest review of higher education in Australia in almost 20 years, and, through the accord, we undertook a top-to-bottom review of Australia's higher education system. Led by Professor Mary O'Kane AC, we engaged a panel of eminent Australians. Collectively, the panel represented some of the sharpest minds in this country, bringing a depth and breadth of experience throughout higher education that would be the envy of the world, as well as being well placed to make recommendations about the future of our system. In November 2022, Minister Clare charged the panel with conducting a review to drive lasting reform in our higher education system. This is reform that would deliver a higher education system that would not only meet the current needs of our country, but meet the future needs of our nation too—a plan that would have targets and measurable outcomes so that we as a nation could track our progress. The panel engaged extensively across the higher education sector through the university accord consultation process, engaging with students, staff, researchers, industry and other governments to examine a range of issues.

My electorate of Chisholm is home to many students, academics, university staff and families with an incredibly deep interest in higher education. I'm really pleased to say that my community had the opportunity to participate in the accord review process. This included direct feedback that I received via electronic correspondence and mobile offices, including on campuses at Monash and Deakin University, in my electorate at that point, and I had the opportunity to hear directly from students. I'm incredibly grateful for the feedback that was provided. Students spoke with me and my staff about the need to improve student supports. They spoke about student safety on campus. They spoke about the lack of access to Commonwealth supported places and about the challenges of balancing studies whilst trying to earn an income and, at the same time, needing to undertake unpaid prac placements for their nursing or teaching degree. Sadly, I also heard from students about their very deep worries around student debt and the prospect of potentially never being able to afford a home of their own, something we're seeking to fix through our recently passed tax changes around negative gearing.

Feedback from our community was also received by way of a comprehensive higher education survey that I conducted across my electorate, which received hundreds of submissions. Eighty-four per cent of respondents to my survey had previously studied at an Australian university, and 61 per cent were employed in higher education. I also was employed in higher education for a period of time. Working in universities was my first career. So I'm very passionate about the issues people raised with me.

The views I received from my electorate really helped inform the position I was able to take to government, and on behalf of my electorate of Chisholm I made a submission to the consultation on the Accord interim report. I stated in my submission that the issues uncovered through the Chisholm higher education survey demonstrated that there was a very clear expectation from the community and sector stakeholders that higher education should be meaningfully reformed—that we should not squander the chance afforded to us in government to make the deep and significant changes required in order to improve the Australian higher education system, which is an already excellent system but with clear areas where things could be improved. I also submitted to the accord process that the platform provided in the consultation process was important in fostering consensus and driving transformative change, that consultation itself was very important and that through that consultation we could be more transparent and accountable around our expectations of higher education, ensuring that benefits would be shared.

Once again, I really want to express my gratitude to my community of Chisholm for their feedback and the opportunity to put their views to our minister and to our government around the improvements people saw as essential to our higher education system. I'm pleased the government listened, and the final report of the Australian Universities Accord process really did reflect many of the concerns raised by my constituents. This final report serves as a blueprint for higher education reform over the next decade and the decade after that.

We've already, as the Albanese Labor government, implemented more than 30 of the accord's 47 recommendations in full or in part. This of course includes making HECS better and fairer by cutting 20 per cent of HECS debts, and I know that means a lot for my community in Chisholm. We've changed the way student debt is calculated, which is a significant change. That happened when we capped indexation on HECS debts to the lower of the CPI and the WPI. That has meant that more than 23,000 people in my electorate will never again see their debts grow faster than their wages. That's really important.

We also introduced, for the first time, paid prac for teaching, nursing, midwifery and social work students, which is a really important initiative to which we've since announced an expansion. One of our initiatives, too, was the introduction of the National Student Ombudsman, as well as the National Higher Education Code to Prevent and Respond to Gender-based Violence. These are two reforms that I was particularly passionate about. Through the accord process I heard directly from students and staff about their own lived experiences both on and off campus. It also gave me cause to reflect on my own lived experiences and those of my peers throughout my academic life, both as a student who lived on campus and as a staff member in a university. I recognised how important it was to introduce a new student ombudsman, and I'm pleased to say that we have delivered on this recommendation.

The Australian Universities Accord recommended adopting a new funding model for higher education that's planned and managed by the Australian Tertiary Education Commission through mission based compacts. It also recommended increasing the number of higher education places for students from underrepresented backgrounds, matched by a focus on the success of these students. These changes will inject an additional $3.6 billion into Australia's higher education system over the next decade to increase the number of students at university and to meet Australia's future skill needs.

I do at this point want to acknowledge that there is unfinished business here—the unfinished business of repealing the Job-Ready Graduates scheme. This is something I've been pretty outspoken on for a number of years, including before I entered parliament. I've had some very constructive conversations with the minister on this issue, and I hope to see more progress soon.

This bill before us today, though, enacts our commitment to expanding access to university through a new funding system. It will embed a new managed growth funding system and establish a demand-driven needs based funding model to support students from underrepresented backgrounds to access university and to succeed at university. The completion of courses is very important. It will also formalise the role of the commission in allocating Commonwealth supported places. This new managed growth funding system will effectively uncap the number of places for students from low socioeconomic backgrounds and from regional areas. This new system will address existing issues in the higher education funding system and will better align Commonwealth funding with enrolments at universities. Our changes are expected to result in an extra 230,000 domestic students commencing at university over the next decade. That's 230,000 lives that are going to be changed and who are going to be able to access opportunities they may not have otherwise been able to.

Higher education providers will be supported to transition to the new funding system. Demand-driven, needs based funding will provide extra funding to support students who come from economically disadvantaged backgrounds, First Nations students and students studying at regional campuses. Similarly to Gonski funding for schools, the more students a university has that meet the appropriate criteria, the more funding the university will receive to help those students to participate and to succeed at university.

Under this new needs based funding system, the amount of funding per student will more than double next year in some cases. This bill sets the base equity amount at $1,535 and the base regional amount at $1,398. That is more than double the average amount that was provided to universities per student last year, which was as little as $600 under similar previous programs. Universities will be able to use this extra funding for things like tutoring, mentoring and other academic supports, for direct financial assistance through scholarships and grants, and for offsetting the higher cost of campuses in regional and remote areas. In addition, the bill sets out a framework for the commission to exercise its existing function to allocate international student places, where the minister for education makes an international allocation pool determination.

In summary, this bill embeds a new managed growth funding system to support growth of domestic students, particularly those from low socioeconomic backgrounds and regional and remote backgrounds. It establishes a demand-driven, needs based funding model to support students from low socioeconomic backgrounds, First Nations students and students studying at regional campuses. It critically formalises the role of the Australian Tertiary Education Commission in allocating Commonwealth supported places to higher education providers.

Significantly, these changes have been supported by a range of stakeholders within the higher education sector. Australian Technology Network of Universities Executive Director Dr Andy Marks stated:

Making access to university fairer is just the beginning … these measures will also lift the nation's skill-base in targeted-technology based areas.

Professor Theo Farrell, the Vice-Chancellor of La Trobe University, has said:

For Australia to meet its future workforce and productivity needs, we must increase access to higher education and ensure there is enough growth in the system … this legislation is an important step towards that vision.

On funding, we've also heard from students, including through the National Union of Students national president Felix Hughes, who has said:

These reforms recognise that equity must be built into the higher education funding system and that supporting students from underrepresented backgrounds is essential to creating a more accessible higher education system.

There is, of course, more to be done when it comes to making our higher education system better, fairer and more accessible. This legislation is a very important step. It will help to open the doors of opportunity, as the name suggests. It's opening those doors wider. That's what the Labor government is committed to doing for every student in my electorate and everywhere throughout our nation. On that, I commend the bill to the House.

Sophie Scamps (Mackellar, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Universities Accord (Opening the Doors of Opportunity) Bill 2026. Australia's universities are among our most important national institutions. They educate the next generation of teachers, nurses, engineers, scientists and business leaders. They drive research and innovation, contribute billions of dollars to our economy and enrich the cultural and civic life of communities right across the country.

But it's also true that our higher education system faces significant challenges. Many young Australians are carrying HELP debts far larger than previous generations did while also trying to save for a deposit on a house in an increasingly expensive housing market and trying to establish themselves financially. For too many graduates, debt accumulated through study has become another pressure in an already difficult cost-of-living environment.

At the same time, university staff are under considerable strain. Academic and professional staff have faced years of uncertainty, workload pressures and funding instability. Many institutions continue to grapple with workforce challenges that affect both the quality of education and the wellbeing of those who deliver it. Across the sector, we have also seen controversies involving governance, campus culture and the management of public resources. These issues have rightly attracted scrutiny, because universities occupy a unique position in Australian society. They receive significant public support and play a crucial role in shaping our nation's future.

In this context, the Australian Universities Accord sought to examine Australia's higher education system and create a long-term plan for reform. The accord's final report established a road map for higher education to ensure Australia has the skills, workforce and research capacity necessary to meet the challenges of coming decades. A strong university sector produces the knowledge, skills and research that underpin economic growth. It creates opportunities for people to develop their talents and fulfil their potential. It strengthens our democracy by encouraging inquiry, debate and critical thinking. The benefits extend beyond students themselves. Communities that host universities gain jobs, investment, cultural vitality and greater economic activity.

The accord also sets ambitious targets for educational attainment. It recommended lifting the tertiary attainment rate of working-age Australians from around 60 per cent today to at least 80 per cent by 2050. It also proposed increasing the proportion of Australians aged 25 to 30 with a university qualification from approximately 45 per cent to 55 per cent over the same period. Achieving those objectives will require substantial growth in the higher education system. The number of Commonwealth supported university students will need to more than double, rising from around 860,000 today to about 1.8 million by 2050.

But the accord recognised that growth alone is not enough. It identified the persistent inequality that exists within our education system and the reality that students from disadvantaged backgrounds often require additional support to succeed. Students from low-socioeconomic backgrounds, regional and remote communities and First Nations communities continue to be underrepresented in higher education. Addressing those barriers was rightly identified as a central objective of reform.

The bill before the House forms part of the government's response to some of the recommendations contained within the accord. I welcome the objective of expanding opportunity, particularly for students from disadvantaged backgrounds and those living in regional and rural Australia. Ensuring that more Australians can access higher education is a goal we should all support. However, I hold concerns that some elements of this bill may be unnecessarily restrictive to student choice, reduce institutional flexibility and create a system that becomes overly dependent on future ministerial discretion.

This legislation will be highly consequential for both universities and students. In broad terms, it does three things. First, it reshapes the way Commonwealth supported places are funded through the introduction of a managed growth funding model. Second, it establishes a new needs based funding framework. Third, it creates a framework for the allocation of international student places. Under the current system, Commonwealth funding is largely distributed through maximum basic grant arrangements, with student demand playing a significant role in determining growth over time.

The bill proposes a different approach. Rather than growth occurring primarily in response to student demand, the Australian Tertiary Education Commission, ATEC, would be responsible for allocating funded student places to institutions. The government's argument is that this allows growth to be directed towards areas of national priority while providing universities with greater certainty about future investment. There is merit in that objective. Transparency around the size and growth of the higher education system is important. Universities need a degree of certainty so they can make long-term decisions about staffing, infrastructure, course offerings and student support services. I support these intentions.

However, I'm concerned that the legislation contains no requirement for future governments to increase the number of Commonwealth supported places over time. While the current government has made clear that it intends for the overall system to grow, this bill does not bind future ministers to that course. A future government could theoretically retain the framework while choosing not to expand opportunity. For that reason, I support the amendments being moved by the member for Curtin, particularly those requiring the minister to publish a statement of reasons for these important decisions, including the total number of Commonwealth supported places.

I also have concerns regarding the hard cap framework established by this bill. Currently, universities operate with a degree of flexibility and are able to enrol students above their allocated Commonwealth supported places when demand significantly exceeds expectations. This flexibility has allowed universities to respond to changing circumstances and accommodate student demand when additional places are needed. Under the model proposed in this legislation, that flexibility will be reduced. Universities that enrol more than five per cent above their allocation or 750 additional places, whichever is lower, will face financial penalties through the loss of student contribution revenue for those enrolments. My concern is that this could ultimately constrain student choice. While there are mechanisms through which universities can seek additional places and pathways through which ATEC can make recommendations to the minister, I'm not yet convinced these safeguards are sufficient. As these reforms are implemented, the government must ensure that student access and choice remain at the centre of the system.

There is also a broader issue that this bill does not adequately address. One of the major drivers of distortions within higher education over recent years has been the Job-ready Graduates Package. The Job-ready Graduates reforms were built on the assumption that changing the price of degrees would significantly change student behaviour. Certain degrees became cheaper in the hope that students would move into areas of workforce shortage, while others became substantially more expensive. That assumption has not been borne out. Students did not suddenly abandon their interests, talents and career aspirations because university fees changed, nor did large numbers switch disciplines simply because one degree costs less than another. Instead, student preferences remain relatively stable while debts increase dramatically for many students.

Today, some graduates leave university carrying debts many times larger than those of their peers studying different disciplines. For many students, a three-year degree can result in debt exceeding $50,000 before they have even secured full-time employment. As Universities Australia Chief Executive Officer Luke Sheehy has observed, Job-ready Graduates reduced public investment in university teaching by around $1 billion a year while increasing the share paid by students. The government is now spending $16 billion reducing HELP balances while leaving in place a system that continues to inflate them. That is not fiscal discipline. It's deferred reform. I share the view that the job-ready graduates scheme has failed to achieve its central objective and it remains one of the most significant unresolved issues in higher education policy.

Another major component of this bill relates to international students. The legislation establishes a framework through which a future government may determine an overall national cap on international student commencements, with ATEC responsible for distributing places across institutions. I support the principle of managed growth. International education is enormously valuable to Australia, but it is entirely reasonable that governments ensure expansion occurs in an orderly and sustainable manner. I also support the role of an independent commission in helping allocate those places. However, I do have concerns about the breadth of ministerial powers to determine the overall number of international student places. Whenever such significant powers are concentrated in the hands of a minister, there is a risk that decisions become political rather than evidence-based. The challenge is to strike the right balance between accountability, independence and transparency. I believe further safeguards can strengthen the framework and reduce that risk.

The final major reform contained within this bill is the introduction of a needs based funding model. Under this approach, universities will receive additional funding linked to enrolling and supporting students from groups that have historically faced barriers to higher education, including First Nations students, students from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds and students from regional and remote communities. The legislation also requires those funds to be directed towards student support and regional delivery purposes. This is a reform I strongly support.

Access to higher education is not equal across Australia. A student's opportunities are often shaped by where they grow up, the resources available in their school, their family's financial circumstances and whether they can relocate to pursue study. Recognising those realities is about ensuring that talent is not overlooked simply because opportunity is unevenly distributed. If we are serious about expanding participation and meeting the ambitious targets set out in the accord, then additional support for underrepresented students is essential.

In conclusion, I support the aims and many of the reforms contained within this bill. Planned and purposeful growth is preferable to the unmanaged drift identified in the accord process, needs based funding is a long overdue recognition that equity requires more than simply opening the front door and a stronger role for independent oversight in the allocation of international student places represents a positive step forward. However, I remain concerned about the hard enrolment caps proposed by the legislation and the scope of ministerial powers regarding international student numbers. I will therefore support the crossbench amendments designed to address these concerns.

I also strongly urge the government to remove the failed job-ready graduates scheme which continues to burden students with higher debts without delivering the workforce outcomes it promised. Despite these reservations, I acknowledge the genuine ambition behind this legislation. Expanding opportunity, broadening participation and preparing Australia for the skills challenges of the future are important objectives, and they deserve our support. I thank the minister for his leadership on this vitally important work, and I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.