by leave—I move amendments (1) to (10), as circulated in my name, together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 5 (after line 20), after subsection 30-5(8), insert:

Publication of reasons for determination or variation

(8A) The Minister must ensure that, within 14 days after the day on which the Minister makes or varies a *total allocation pool determination, a written statement setting out the Minister's reasons for making or varying the determination is published on the Department's website or on the ATEC's website.

(2) Schedule 1, item 17, page 30 (line 30) to page 31 (line 4), omit the item, substitute:

17 Paragraph 36-10(1)(a)

Repeal the paragraph, substitute:

(a) if the unit is the first unit that the person has undertaken that forms part of a particular *course of study being undertaken with the provider—that course of study is one:

(i) for which the provider has been allocated one or more Commonwealth supported places for the year in which the person is undertaking the unit; or

(ii) that is a *demand driven higher education course; and

(3) Schedule 1, page 31 (after line 4), after item 17, insert:

17A After subsection 36-10(1)

Insert:

Changes in status of course of study after enrolment in unit have no effect

(1A) Subsection (1B) applies if:

(a) the condition in paragraph (1)(a) is satisfied in relation to a person and a unit of study at the time when the person enrols in the unit; and

(b) at some time after the person enrols in the unit of study, the unit ceases (for whatever reason) to form part of a *course of study:

(i) for which the provider has been allocated one or more Commonwealth supported places for the year in which the person is undertaking the unit; or

(ii) that is a *demand driven higher education course.

(1B) To avoid doubt, in a case where this subsection applies, nothing in paragraph (1)(a) prohibits a higher education provider from advising the person that the person is a *Commonwealth supported student in relation to the unit.

(4) Schedule 1, item 22, page 31 (line 22) to page 32 (line 2), omit the item, substitute:

22 Section 36-65

Repeal the section.

(5) Schedule 1, item 24, page 32 (after line 23), at the end of section 37-1, add:

Minister to table report

(5) The Minister must cause a copy of the report of the evaluation to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the Minister receives the report.

(6) Schedule 1, item 59, page 48 (after line 27), at the end of section 39-75, add:

Minister to table report

(5) The Minister must cause a copy of the report of the evaluation to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the Minister receives the report.

(7) Schedule 2, item 15, page 57 (after line 14), after subsection 46B(4), insert:

Publication of reasons for determination or variation

(4A) The Minister must ensure that, within 14 days after the day on which the Minister makes or varies an international allocation pool determination, a written statement setting out the Minister's reasons for making or varying the determination is published on the Department's website or on the ATEC's website.

(8) Schedule 2, item 15, page 59 (after line 23), at the end of section 46E, add:

(3) However, the Minister must not give directions in relation to:

(a) a higher education provider; or

(b) a class or classes of higher education providers.

(9) Schedule 2, item 15, page 60 (after line 27), at the end of Part 4A, add:

46G Evaluation of operation of this Part

(1) The Minister must cause an independent evaluation to be conducted of the operation of this Part.

(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the evaluation must include consideration of the exercise of powers and performance of functions by the ATEC under this Part.

Timing of evaluation

(3) The persons conducting the evaluation must commence the evaluation before 1 January 2031.

Minister to be given report of evaluation

(4) The persons conducting the evaluation must give the Minister a written report of the evaluation.

Minister to table report

(5) The Minister must cause a copy of the report of the evaluation to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the Minister receives the report.

(10) Schedule 2, item 17, page 61 (lines 1 to 3), omit the item.

I support the intent of the Universities Accord (Opening the Doors of Opportunity) Bill 2026 bill to expand opportunity and access to higher education. I support the principles of managed growth, needs based funding and proper stewardship of the international student sector, but I believe there are a series of improvements that can be made to this bill.

The first set of amendments aims to protect students from having their places withdrawn. Amendments (2) and (3) have the effect of ensuring that, once a student is given a Commonwealth supported place, or CSP, it cannot be taken away through any power given by this bill to the minister or to ATEC. This protection already exists in the Higher Education Support Act, but this bill creates significant ambiguity around this protection. For example, if the minister designated a course under proposed section 30-30 of this bill and then allocated an insufficient number of places, some students could potentially lose their CSP. This amendment addresses that ambiguity. Universities should, of course, be able to withdraw places for students on disciplinary or academic grounds, but we don't want a system where second- and third-year students are losing their places because of bureaucratic decisions made in Canberra.

The second set of amendments increases oversight of ministerial decisions. This bill gives the minister power to determine the overall number of domestic and international students. These decisions are crucial for Australia's higher education system. Reasons for these decisions should be published to support scrutiny and oversight and ensure decisions are made in the public interest. Amendments (1) and (7) would have the effect of ensuring the minister must publish reasons for two important decisions—the total number of domestic student places and the total number of international student places.

The bill also overhauls the higher education funding model, introducing new systems for managed growth, needs based funding and international student allocations. The bill rightly introduces independent evaluations of the managed growth and needs based funding systems, but these are not made public. Amendments (5) and (6) would ensure that the independent evaluations of the new managed growth and needs based funding systems would be made public.

While the bill includes requirements for independent evaluations of the new managed growth and needs based funding systems, it doesn't require an evaluation of the new international student allocation system. Amendment (9) would establish an identical independent evaluation process for the international student allocation system. Considering how politicised this topic can become and how significant it is for our economy and education system, this evaluation should be a no-brainer.

The next set of amendments seeks to preserve the autonomy of universities and higher education providers. As this bill does centralise power to the minister and to ATEC, it's vital to ensure universities are still allowed to compete, specialise and thrive. This bill gives the minister the power to set conditions on each higher education provider that must be met for the provider to receive Commonwealth funding. This unqualified, unrestricted power is clear overreach. A minister could set undefined, highly political conditions on individual universities. This is also duplicative of ATEC's role, which is to negotiate mission based compacts with each higher education provider. Amendments (4) and (8) would remove this power. I note the government's amendments do put some limited safeguards around this power, which I'm glad to see, but I still believe that that power should be removed.

The bill also gives the minister the power to set provider-specific directions to ATEC when it's considering international student allocations. This allows for highly political directions in an area that is highly politicised. A minister could hypothetically direct ATEC to allocate zero international student places specifically to the University of Western Australia. It's the role of the independent ATEC to allocate international student places. It should not be the role of the minister. Amendment (10) would remove this power, bringing the international student allocation system in line with the domestic student allocation system, where the minister is not able to make provider-specific directions to ATEC. I appreciate there may be some positive applications of this power, but at a minimum the power should be appropriately safeguarded.

I acknowledge that my team has had constructive conversations with the minister's office, and I accept that the government will not support these amendments while the Senate committee inquiry is ongoing. But I call on the minister and the government to consider these amendments alongside the committee's report and enact some of those improvements in the Senate, if not in this place.

I thank the member for Curtin for her support for this important legislation. This bill means that more young people from poor families, from the regions and from the most remote parts of Australia will get a chance to go to university and get the extra support that they need when they get there. I want to do everything I can to make sure that the bill does what it says on the label—that it opens the doors of opportunity wider—and I know that the member wants that too.

As always, I'm open to considering sensible and appropriate amendments. I think an indication of that is the way in which we approached the Australian Tertiary Education Commission legislation earlier this year, where the government accepted 36 amendments to the bill that was originally presented in the House through the Senate inquiry and the Senate process. And, as the members foreshadowed on Monday, the education and employment committee will hear from the sector and other stakeholders, and I look forward to their report and any recommendations for improvements to this important bill. But I'll wait to see that report before considering further amendments. As such, the government is not in a position to support these amendments today.

I want to acknowledge the amendments made by the member for Curtin. I want to say to her that, in the coalition, we are reserving our position on these amendments. As we've said all the way along, since this bill was introduced, it does need very careful scrutiny. We will form our final position on the basis of the scrutiny that's occurring in the other place. We will not be supporting these amendments in this chamber today for the same reason we're not going to support the government's amendments. That's not an expression of our view about the amendments or the policies or merits that lie behind it; it's about ensuring we get this right.

And can I say to the member for Curtin: I want to thank her for the engagement that her office has had with my office on the amendments. It's been appreciated; I appreciate the collaboration.

Question negatived.

by leave—I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill and move:

(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (line 23), after "30-15(1)", insert "or (1A)".

(2) Schedule 1, item 2, page 4 (line 20), after "30-15(1)", insert "or (1A)".

(3) Schedule 1, item 2, page 6 (lines 2 to 7), omit subsection 30-15(1), substitute:

Allocation to Table A providers

(1) The *ATEC must, in writing, allocate a specified whole number of Commonwealth supported places for *higher education courses for each year to each *Table A provider.

Allocation to providers other than Table A providers

(1A) The *ATEC may, in writing, allocate a specified whole number of Commonwealth supported places for *higher education courses for a specified year to a higher education provider referred to in subparagraph 30-1(1)(a)(ii).

Domestic student profile

(4) Schedule 1, item 2, page 6 (line 9), after "subsection (1)", insert "or (1A)".

(5) Schedule 1, item 2, page 6 (line 12), after "subsection (1)", insert "or (1A)".

(6) Schedule 1, item 2, page 6 (lines 14 to 15), omit subsection 30-20(1).

(7) Schedule 1, item 2, page 6 (line 16), omit the heading to subsection 30-20(2), substitute:

Number of places that must be allocated

(8) Schedule 1, item 2, page 6 (lines 17 to 18), omit all the words from and including "The" to and including "exceed", substitute "A *Table A provider's *domestic student profile for a year must be equal to".

(9) Schedule 1, item 2, page 6 (line 23), after "growth allocation", insert "(if any)".

(10) Schedule 1, item 2, page 8 (line 30), omit "30-15(1)", substitute "30-15(1A)".

(11) Schedule 1, item 2, page 9 (line 29), after "30-15(1)", insert "or (1A)".

(12) Schedule 1, item 5, page 13 (lines 6 to 7), omit paragraph 33-5(2)(a).

(13) Schedule 1, item 5, page 13 (line 8), omit "such an allocation has been made and".

(14) Schedule 1, item 5, page 13 (line 10), omit "such an allocation has been made and".

(15) Schedule 1, item 5, page 15 (lines 7 to 11), omit paragraph 33-5(5)(a), substitute:

(a) if the provider does not have a *designated courses profile for the year—nil; or

(16) Schedule 1, item 5, page 20 (line 12), omit "30-15(1)", substitute "30-15(1A)".

(17) Schedule 1, item 22, page 31 (after line 29), after subsection 36-65(2), insert:

Limits on conditions

(2A) The Minister must not determine a condition under subsection (1) that:

(a) specifies a matter in respect of which the Minister could have made a determination under subsection 36-15(2) of this Act (or could have made such a determination but for subsection 36-15(4) of this Act or section 48 (remaking disallowed legislative instruments) of the Legislation Act 2003); or

(b) relates to industrial relations matters.

Note: The Minister has the power under subsection 36-15(2) to determine, by legislative instrument, that students are not to be enrolled as Commonwealth supported students in particular courses. Subsection 36-15(4) requires the determination to be made at least 6 months before students are able next to commence the courses.

Conditions to be published

(2B) The Minister must cause each determination made under subsection (1) to be published on the Department's website.

Determination not a legislative instrument

First, can I offer an apology to my friend and colleague, the shadow minister for education. This debate concluded this week sooner than I expected and anticipated, and so we've gotten to this point in consideration in detail of the bill this week rather than in September. I recognise the point that he made in his comments just a moment ago that the coalition is yet to consider and form a final position on this bill in its totality and reserves its position until the Senate inquiry is completed and presents its recommendations for the consideration of the Senate.

With those remarks, can I just outline briefly what I'm presenting here to the House to consider. These amendments would clarify the effect of certain provisions and fix minor drafting errors that have been identified by my department since the introduction of the bill. They clarify that universities will receive a guaranteed allocation of Commonwealth supported places at the level of their existing core student load. This confirms that, where a university fills a funded Commonwealth supported place one year, they won't lose it the next. Universities will continue to be able to negotiate additional places with the ATEC, as already set out in the bill.

Amendments also preserve existing safeguards in the Higher Education Support Act 2003 regarding the minister's power to set conditions on funding to ensure conditions on funding cannot be extended to industrial relations matters, to ensure the minister's powers do not displace existing protections around how Commonwealth supported places may be excluded for certain courses and to require any conditions on funding imposed by the minister to be published on the Department of Education's website.

Amendments ensure the minister's powers to impose conditions on funding have the same effect as the provisions already existing in higher education legislation. I commend these amendments to the House.

I rise to speak on the government's amendments on sheet HG137, and I acknowledge the minister's, as it were, apology in relation to what's happened, that these amendments have come on a little earlier.

I want to say something about the coalition's position on the amendments. We will not support the amendments, as I mentioned earlier, when it's put to a vote. That's not because we're opposed to it in principle, but because, even though it's been ready to go for some time, it was only introduced last night, and we haven't had time to work through it. We reserve our position on the merits, and we're not prepared just to wave it through. We're not sure these amendments are right.

I'm a little amused about this, because, for everyone in this chamber and for everyone watching, I think these amendments are an admission that the government got it wrong, that it stuffed up and that there are errors and unintended consequences in the legislation that it only introduced into this chamber a few weeks ago. It seems that the government only became aware of these after I pointed them out. Before we've even completed the second reading stage of the bill, before the bill's been scrutinised by the committee, the minister has announced 17 different amendments into this parliament. The only conclusion to be drawn here is that the bill doesn't do what the minister says it does, so let's unpack what happened here.

In the last sitting block, the minister introduced a bill. He said it was about opening the doors of opportunity, about poor kids getting a go, about regional students getting support. It was all about places and all about money. Then, on the last day of the last sitting week before the winter break on 2 July, I gave the coalition's second reading speech. I said we hadn't formed a position on the bill one way or the other, but the thrust of my speech was that this is not a bill about money or places. It's a bill about control, not places.

One of the most egregious examples of this was the minister's unilateral power to impose conditions on universities. Right now, the law says that providers must comply with conditions that they agree to. That is section 36-65 of the Higher Education Support Act, or HESA. That's fair enough. If you're a university and you agree to a condition, you must abide by it. I pointed out that, for some reason, the minister was changing that dynamic. The new section 36-65 introduced by this bill says, among other things:

The Minister may, in writing, determine conditions that a specified higher education provider must comply with for the purposes of this Division.

What does that mean? It means that at any time the minister can impose a condition on a university and that that university will be required by law to comply with it. They don't need to agree to it. The minister just decides and the uni must comply. The minister is not required to consult. The minister is not even required to publish the condition. The condition can be retrospective, and it is unfettered in its scope. As I specifically pointed out, it can deal with industrial relations matters. It is an extraordinary degree of power. It is not subject to disallowance in the parliament, and it's not subject to merits review.

Item 17 on this sheet changes it. It specifically and deliberately removes from the minister the power to make conditions in relation to industrial relations conditions. You can only imagine how the NTEU dropped their bundle at the prospect of a future minister having control over their industrial conditions, and no doubt they told the minister to fix it. You can imagine the flurry of activity that followed. Let's be clear here. I finished talking about this bill around 12.45 pm on 2 July. These amendments were ready to go before the very next sitting day. Helpfully, the government amendments have a time stamp. They were finalised on 10 August 2026 at 3.13.04 pm.

Ten days ago, on Monday of last week, before this parliament had even returned for this sitting block, these amendments were ready to go. If you work the process required to amend the bill back from there, there's a long tail. You need to identify the problem, as I did on 2 July. You need to give drafting instructions. You need to get the amendments through your internal processes, through cabinet, and at least obtain the agreement of the Prime Minister. Presumably you need to explain the stuff-up to caucus. This is the fix that I hazard a guess has actually been weeks in the making. No wonder the minister had to tell the Financial Review conference he was open to amendments. No wonder he had to try and describe this as Hanson-proofing the bill. He's already had his marching orders from the NTEU and needed to try and make a virtue out of necessity.

I've got some questions for the minister. What does item 17 on this sheet do? Why have you introduced it? When did you give drafting instructions? Did you consult with the NTEU or other unions first? Why didn't you consult across the parliament before circulating it?

I want to say something about the process that's being followed, and I'm now talking to members of the parliament more broadly, particularly to the Labor caucus; to university administrators; to the leaders of Universities Australia; to the various university groups; to higher education specialists; and to journalists in this nation's major mastheads. As I said, the bill doesn't do what the minister says it does. The reason we're voting on these amendments now before the bill has even been considered by a Senate committee is because it's been obvious that the bill does something different. We're not prepared to wave these amendments through on less than 24 hours notice. We will work through things sensibly. We want the record to show we're not simply prepared to give a blank cheque.

As I pointed out, these amendments have been ready to go for 10 days. Even though the bill has been in the works since May 2025, it's apparent that the legislation introduced into this chamber contains errors and unintended consequences that weren't revealed until we pointed them out, as I pointed out some of these issues when I spoke on the bill on 2 July and there were government amendments ready to go before the very next sitting day.

Let me look at how some of the other provisions on this sheet, other than item 17, operate. The government is now removing and replacing subsection 30-15(1) of its bill. As it was introduced, this provision said that the ATEC may in writing allocate a specified whole number of Commonwealth supported places to a table A provider or another higher education provider. It's a fundamental provision of this bill. It's about allocation of Commonwealth supported places by the ATEC and how that is done. They are repealing the provision that they introduced a few weeks ago and replacing it. That sounds significant, so I ask the minister: what exactly is changing here? The new provision says the ATEC must allocate Commonwealth supported places to a table A provider, which, for those who are not familiar, means a public university. It must allocate those places. It doesn't have a choice.

Then there's a new provision, subsection 1A, which says a TEK may allocate places to another higher education provider. My question to the minister is why we are having this change. Can he—through you, Deputy Speaker—explain why item 3 on the government's amendments sheet why was deemed necessary? What is the unintended consequence that the government is trying to address before this bill even gets to the Senate? What has spooked them? The point I make is this. These aren't mere technical changes. This is one of the central provisions of the bill that is being changed—the provision of the bill that deals with the allocation of CSPs. As I said previously, the bill only really deals with four things: allocation of domestic student load, allocation of international student load, ministerial control and needs based funding. The provision you are changing here is one of the key provisions that deals with domestic students, arguably the most important of those four areas.

Why the urgent unannounced change? Is the minister concerned the legislation as introduced would have allowed the ATEC not to give places to the public universities at all? Did the government discover the original bill didn't actually guarantee every table A university an allocation? Was there a legal possibility that ATEC could choose not to allocate places to a particular public university at all? Could ATEC have allocated a table A university fewer places than its calculated core student load? Could it have allocated none? The government should tell the House whether this amendment creates a statutory entitlement for every table A provider to receive an allocation every year and what is precisely the content of that entitlement.

Is the guarantee simply that the number must be greater than zero, or does the interaction with the core student load provisions mean that every table A provider is guaranteed its statutory core student load? This is the very drafting issue the higher education expert Professor Andrew Norton identified shortly after introduction. If the policy was that domestic student profile would be the core student load plus growth, why did the bill merely say that it must not exceed that amount? The government is now addressing that issue. So was the original bill wrong? What would have happened if parliament had passed the bill in its original form?

Then there's the other side of the amendment—the non-table-A providers, the private higher education providers. Is there any minimum allocation for non-table-A providers? Which non-table-A providers will be eligible for these places, and what is the process for them to obtain places? Is there any right to reasons? Is there any transparent competitive process? Is there a review mechanism if ATEC refuses an allocation?

These are the core provisions of this bill. They go to how university places are allocated in this country. For students, it means this. These rushed amendments go to where and whether you will have the opportunity to study. I point out to those listening this: if within days of introduction it's having to make changes to the fundamental provisions of the bill, what else has the government missed?

The question is that the amendments moved by the government be agreed to.