According to the statement of reasons for the government amendments on sheet HG147, the amendment (3) 'will change the destination of money appropriated, which will increase a burden in relation to an appropriation'. This reflects the advice to the government from the parliamentary counsel, but the Clerk's view is that this does not accord with precedents of the Senate. The third paragraph of section 53 of the Constitution provides that:

The Senate may not amend any proposed law so as to increase any proposed charge or burden on the people.

This has relevantly been taken to mean that the Senate may not amend a bill to increase the proposed expenditure under a standing appropriation. However, the amendment in question does not have that effect.

The advice of the Clerk, which is set out on the amendment sheet, is that:

The amendment broadens the purposes for which higher education providers may spend the equity component of their needs-based funding grants. It does not change the provisions determining the amount of those grants or the total proposed expenditure under the standing appropriation. The fact that the grants may be used to support a larger class of persons does not itself increase the amount payable by the Commonwealth.

This is consistent with the approach the Senate took in relation to the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Bill 2016 and the Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill 2024. I have considered the views of the parliamentary counsel and the Clerk and consider that the Clerk's view is consistent with the precedents of the Senate. I therefore rule that the amendment should be framed as an amendment, not a request.

I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to this bill.

I move:

(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 9 (line 27), at the end of subsection 30-45(1), add:

; (d) student demand.

The Greens have worked really hard with Minister Clare's office on this bill and have made this bill much better than it was with the 13 amendments that have been agreed to by the government, which we have pushed. The bill is now focused on student needs and student choice much more than it was before, and it allows much less intervention now by the minister than it did before—and that is a good thing. The amendments that the government has agreed to have been amendments that unis and students and their unions have really wanted, and that is the reason we have worked so hard to make them happen. We have an agreement now with the government.

This particular amendment goes to student demand. As the bill originally was, nothing required the minister or ATEC to consider student demand when making allocation decisions. For a bill that is supposedly all about growth, for ATEC to not even turn its mind to or consider student demand is quite absurd. You cannot force students to attend institutions chosen by the minister or ATEC. They simply won't go. This amendment ensures that ATEC must consider the demand from students when making allocations. Without this amendment, student choice would have been sidelined in the managed growth system, with the government attempting to shift students around in order to fill funding gaps that their own policies have created. Higher education should be staff- and student-led, not led by the minister or ATEC-led, and I'm pleased that the government will support the Greens amendment.

I thank Senator Faruqi for this amendment and confirm the government's support.

The question is the Australian Greens amendment (1) on sheet 4046 be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

I move:

(1) Schedule 1, item 59, page 41 (line 23), omit "at the time the person enrols in the unit,".

This amendment is about the timing of low socioeconomic status—or SES—applications. Again, for a bill that the Albanese government has marketed as being all about equity, an understanding of how disadvantage operates and impacts on student lives was sorely missing from this bill. Universities, staff and academics all criticised the profound inequity in the bill, especially when calculating the applicability of needs based funding and a student's low SES at the time the person enrolled in the unit. This means that the low-SES student living in a regional area who moves to the inner city for university will apparently no longer be disadvantaged.

This perverse position should really never have made it into the bill and into parliament. This Greens amendment will remove the words 'at the time the person enrols in the unit,' that precedes 'the person is a low SES student'. The government has, appropriately, agreed to support this amendment to ensure that low-SES regional students who move for university are not excluded from much-needed support. This will make the bill more sensible and more equitable and will remove any ambiguity around who is a low-SES student and who isn't just because of where they live and where they might have moved from.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I move Greens amendments on sheet 4055 together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 6 (line 18) to page 7 (line 28), omit subsection 30-20, substitute:

30-20 Requirements for allocations to Table A providers

Number of places that must be allocated

(1) A *Table A provider's *domestic student profile for a year must be equal to:

(a) if at any time during the year, a mission based compact under Division 2 of Part 3 of the *ATEC Act was in force between the *ATEC and the provider—the sum of:

(i) the *core student load for the provider for the year; and

(ii) the *additional growth allocation (if any) for the provider for the year; or

(b) otherwise—the core student load for the provider for the year.

Places for particular higher education courses

(2) The allocation must not specify that a number of the Commonwealth supported places in the provider's *domestic student profile are for a particular *higher education course or kind of higher education course.

(2) Schedule 1, item 2, page 8 (lines 27 to 32), section 30-30 to be opposed.

(3) Schedule 1, item 5, page 12 (lines 24 and 25), omit "other than *designated higher education courses (see subsection (2))".

(4) Schedule 1, item 5, page 12 (lines 26 and 27), omit paragraph 33-5(1)(b).

(5) Schedule 1, item 5, page 13 (lines 2 and 3), omit "other than designated higher education courses".

(6) Schedule 1, item 5, page 13 (line 5), omit "other than *designated higher education courses".

(7) Schedule 1, item 5, page 14 (line 13) to page 16 (line 29), omit subsections 33-5(3) to (7), substitute:

(3) If the *number of Commonwealth supported places provided by the provider in *higher education courses during the year exceeds the provider's *domestic student profile for the year, then the amount for those courses is the amount worked out by multiplying:

(a) the provider's *domestic student profile for the year; by

(b) the provider's *average cluster rate for those courses for the year.

(8) Schedule 1, item 6, page 25 (lines 15 and 16), omit "other than *designated higher education courses".

(9) Schedule 1, item 6, page 25 (line 17), omit paragraph 33-15(2)(b).

(10) Schedule 1, item 10, page 26 (lines 1 to 3), to be opposed.

(11) Schedule 1, item 12, page 26 (lines 7 and 8), to be opposed.

(12) Schedule 1, item 31, page 35 (lines 1 and 2), omit the definition of "designated courses profile".

These amendments remove the ability for the minister to set specific courses as designated higher education courses. With this power, the minister would have been able to set the Commonwealth supported place allocations to zero for a specific degree. Ministers change, and any future minister could do that. Frankly, it is not hard to imagine a world under One Nation or the coalition where the minister decides that art degrees are too woke and that no student can study them. No minister should be able to tell students what they can and cannot study. We saw what the coalition government did with Job-ready Graduates. They made art degrees so expensive that students either don't do them or come out with tens of thousands of dollars of debt if they do deign to study them. These Greens amendments remove every reference to designated higher education courses and strip the minister of this power. These amendments, I am happy to report, will be supported by the government.

These are amendments which, out of an abundance of caution, we will oppose. It is a finely balanced issue. We oppose these amendments because they go to one of the central budgetary risks in this bill that we identified when it was first introduced. One of the main changes in this legislation is a change to the way domestic places are funded. Currently, unis are given a bucket of money and they decide the types of places. That changes under this bill. Unis are given a number of places, but not all places cost the same. That creates a budgetary risk if providers decide to deliver high-cost places. This designated places regime gives the minister one way to control that risk because ministers can designate the number of places that can be given in particular types of courses, and there might be other reasons to exercise that power in the national interest. Right now, the designated places regime is not in use, but it might be necessary in the future if we're to bring the budget back to balance under this Labor government's mess.

The first question is that amendments (1), (3) to (9) and (12) be agreed to.

A division having been called and the bells being rung—

Senator O'Sullivan is seeking leave to cancel the division.

Leave granted.

Could we have the coalition's position recorded as opposed to the amendments.

That will be recorded.

Question agreed to.

I've still got one question to put. The question remains that, in schedule 1, section 30-30 in item 2 and items 10 and 12 stand as printed.

Question negatived.

():  by leave—In lieu of a division, we ask to have our position recorded.

I'd now like to move Greens amendment (1) on sheet 4110:

(1) Schedule 1, item 16, page 29 (lines 20 to 29), omit section 33-39, substitute:

33-39 Default deemed allocation

A higher education provider's default deemed allocation for a year is 105% of the provider's *domestic student profile for the year (rounded up to the nearest whole number).

This amendment goes to overenrolment. One of the concerns raised by many universities was the bill's introduction of rigid enrolment caps where universities enrol over their allocation. This cap is problematic both because of the implications of student choice and the number of enrolments and because of its lack of flexibility. Professor Andrew Norton's analysis found that, if this cap were in place in 2025, for instance, it would have permitted only half the overenrolments, at the cost of more than 20,000 places across the system. That would have been 20,000 students potentially cut out of higher education. This amendment expands the overenrolment buffer to 105 per cent of a provider's domestic student profile and allows for flexibility for universities to respond to student demand. I welcome the government's support of this important amendment to protect student choice.

The coalition does not support this amendment. It is an improvement on the bill, but it is a weak second best to the alternative we propose, which creates more choice for students, better flexibility for providers and better outcomes for the taxpayers and helps the smaller providers. This is an amendment which does not address the perverse incentive that sees universities punished if they improve their retention rate.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I seek to have our position recorded in lieu of a division.

by leave—I move Greens amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 4113:

(1) Schedule 1, item 24, page 33 (line 8), omit "2031", substitute "2030".

(2) Schedule 1, item 59, page 48 (line 24), omit "2031", substitute "2030".

(3) Schedule 1, item 59, page 48 (line 25), omit "review", substitute "evaluation".

These are quite simple amendments. They bring forward the commencement date of the evaluation of the operation of the managed growth funding system for domestic students and the needs based funding part of the bill to before 2030 instead of 2031. This allows for a more timely independent evaluation of the new system. Again, I'm happy to report that the government is supporting these amendments.

I'll indicate that we will be supporting amendments on sheets 4113, 4114 and 4115. These are technical amendments which make minor improvements to the bill in relation to the timing of decisions.

Question agreed to.

I move Greens amendment (1) on sheet 4114:

(1) Schedule 1, item 16, page 29 (line 14), after "consecutive years", insert "ending immediately".

This is also to provide certainty. The reference year for the definition of overenrolled places will now be based on the year immediately prior to the reference year. This means that the calculation for a provider's overenrolled places will be based on the year prior and based on their most recent growth instead of the minister being allowed to pick and choose which year of a provider's history to calculate overenrolments against. The minister and the government have seen sense with this amendment, and I appreciate that they have.

Question agreed to.

I move Greens amendment (1) on sheet 4115:

(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 4 (line 14), omit "1 July", substitute "1 June".

There has been very loud disapproval for the total allocation pool determination deadline being set so late, at 1 July, in this bill. Consistent with the sector's calls, this amendment changes the deadline to 1 June. This amendment will give universities at least an extra month of planning to recruit and to make offers, giving certainty to both providers and students. Again, as I said, we have made an agreement with the government that they will support this amendment.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I move Greens amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 4116 together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 59, page 43 (line 8), after "that class", insert ", which must not be less than 1".

(2) Schedule 1, item 59, page 45 (line 24), after "Grants Guidelines", insert ", which must not be less than 0.5".

Yet another problematic aspect of the bill is that it allows an education minister to quash all needs based funding with a flick of their pen. The section these amendments address is the power for the minister to set the equity support amount provided to a university, which they could set at $0. You cannot say that you are providing needs based funding but leave it open to make this funding $0. The Greens will not let any government, whether it's this one or any future one, set needs based funding to $0. The amendments ensure that the equity modifier amount in the bill is at least one and the regional modifier amount can be set to no lower than 0.5. Again, the government is in agreement with these amendments, and I thank them for coming to the same position as the Greens.

The coalition will not oppose these amendments. That's because we support the regions. The regional funding guarantee fixes the loopholes in the regional component of equity funding, and that is very consistent with our support for the regions.

Question agreed to.

I move Greens amendment (1) on sheet 4117:

(1) Schedule 1, item 59, page 47 (lines 2 to 17), omit section 39-65, substitute:

39-65 Conditions on grants

A higher education provider receives a grant under this Part on the following conditions:

(a) that the provider complies with section 39-70 (providers to use amounts for certain purposes);

(b) that the provider meets the [*]quality and accountability requirements;

(c) the conditions (if any) specified in the Needs-based Funding Grants Guidelines.

The Albanese government, like it seems they do with every single bill that they put in parliament, once again have tried to give themselves unprecedented ministerial power in this bill to intervene in how universities operate and how they work. Every single stakeholder that we heard from who provided evidence at the inquiry was so adamantly opposed to the minister imposing conditions, which are unlimited in subject matter and which could be provider specific, on funding grants. This could have seen a minister impose conditions, for instance, prohibiting protests on campus, which is a basic right that we have in our democracy, or even imposing the controversial IHRA definition that conflates antisemitism with the criticism of Israel and many more things. This amendment removes these powers from the minister. There is no reasonable justification for a minister to have these powers, and no deal could have been done without the removal of these excessive powers. I am relieved that the government has agreed to support this amendment.

The coalition will not oppose this amendment. It is consistent with the concerns that we flagged on day one of this legislation about the bill centralising too many powers in the hands of the minister, and we support it on that basis.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I move Greens amendments (1), (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) on sheet 4118 together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 22, page 31 (line 24), omit "Providers", substitute "Medical course providers".

(2) Schedule 1, item 22, page 31 (lines 25 to 27), omit subsection 36-65(1), substitute:

(1) This section applies in relation to a higher education provider that has a *medical courses profile for a year.

(1A) The Minister may, in writing, determine conditions that a specified higher education provider must comply with in relation to *medical courses provided by the provider, for the purposes of this Division.

(3) Schedule 1, item 22, page 32 (line 2), omit "subsection (1)", substitute "subsection (1A)".

(4) Schedule 1, item 22, page 32 (line 18), omit "subsection (1)", substitute "subsection (1A)".

(5) Schedule 1, item 22, page 32 (line 20), omit "subsection (1)", substitute "subsection (1A)".

(6) Schedule 1, item 37, page 35 (before line 22), before the definition of medical courses profile, insert:

medical courses has the meaning given by section 30-70.

These amendments work in conjunction with the amendment on sheet 4117 because, without these amendments, the minister would still be able to have a set of powers to impose on providers when administrating medical courses, as exists now. With these amendments, the minister will have restrained powers. This is to allow for the continuation of incentives to grow medical student numbers and completions and First Nations medical student places and to address regional shortages as well. We know what a difficult situation it is that medical students are in already. So this will at least make life a little bit easier. With the government's help, again, these amendments will hopefully pass the chamber today.

The coalition does not support these amendments, these second-best amendments. They do not do what the sector asks, which is to remove the centralisation of power from the hands of the minister entirely. Instead, they leave that power in place as it relates to medical places. We do not think that that is necessary. This chamber should vote for a more superior amendment, which is either Senator David Pocock's amendment or ours, which essentially does the same thing.

Question agreed to.

by leave—in lieu of a division, I ask that our position be recorded.

by leave—I move Greens amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 4119 together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 9 (line 16), after "account", insert "and publish".

(2) Schedule 1, item 2, page 9 (line 29), at the end of section 30-45, add:

Statement to be published

(3) The *ATEC must, as soon as practicable after the ATEC has allocated the total number of Commonwealth supported places specified in a *total allocation pool determination for a year, publish on the ATEC's website a summary of the matters the ATEC took into account when allocating those places for the year.

This bill and, in general, the Albanese government seem to be allergic to transparency. Staff, students and universities do not accept that student allocation decisions can be made behind closed doors, never to see the light of day, with no publication of reasons or information about those decisions and how they were arrived at. These amendments insert a critical transparency measure requiring ATEC to publish the considerations it takes into account when allocating Commonwealth supported places for each and every year. The government has decided that it will now support this transparency measure being inserted into the bill, which will make a really significant difference to universities in planning for the future and best providing for their students.

The coalition will not oppose these amendments. They are transparency amendments in the same vein as the amendments that we proposed for sections 30 to 50 of the HESA, which were actually specifically asked for by the sector, and we are not opposed to that transparency. The difference between these amendments, which the Greens are bringing forward, and the coalition's amendment on sheet 4036 is that the coalition requires transparency about allocation decisions at provider level and, unfortunately, these don't. Ours does more to provide clarity and prevent patronage; the Greens amendments don't do that. So, for all those that support these amendments and not the coalition's amendment, frankly, it's up to you to explain why you did not adopt the amendment that the sector specifically asked for, which provides greater transparency, and why you decided instead for this vague system-level publication requirement.

Question agreed to.

I now move Greens amendment (1) on sheet 4120:

(1) Schedule 2, item 15, page 56 (line 27), omit "a course", substitute "courses".

This amendment removes the ability for the minister to specify kinds of courses and providers for international student allocation. In another interventionist attack, the bill sought to give the minister the ability to allocate international students to specific individual providers and specific courses. This is an entirely unacceptable intrusion into the autonomy of universities and yet another attack on international students by the Albanese government. The Albanese government has tried again and again to use education policy as migration policy and has failed again and again. But they do not give up their attempts. It's not enough for them to dog whistle on international students and really dehumanise international students; they keep trying to use education policy to crack down on them as well. Migration policy does not belong in an education bill. International students are not cash cows and, now, scapegoats. They really aren't. You need to have some more respect—respect for the students who come here and contribute so much to society.

It is absolutely shameful that the three parties—Labor, Liberal and One Nation—are now using international students over and over as scapegoats, blaming them for every war. That is their fault, because they haven't addressed the housing crisis. They haven't addressed the cost-of-living crisis. It is absolutely shameful that the tens of thousands of students who choose Australia for study are being treated so poorly and so badly. They will stop coming. You will ruin the international education reputation that Australia used to have. Your cruelty to international students knows no bounds. We have made this change, at least in this education bill, and we will not stop there. We will not stop there, because the Greens will not allow you to keep treating international students the way that you are.

This amendment clarifies that a minister cannot set limits at the course level. This reflects our policy intent that only the ATEC is empowered to issue allocations and only at the provider level. The government will be supporting this amendment.

The coalition does not support this amendment. We said earlier that the migration powers in this bill are important and should not be in any way eroded. Let me be clear that we do not think that this amendment has any real effect as a matter of interpretation, but it sends a signal in relation to migration that we simply do not agree with, and, therefore, we will oppose it on that basis.

The question is that the Australian Greens amendment (1) on sheet 4120 be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I'm happy to just have our position recorded in lieu of a division. We oppose.

by leave—I move government amendments (1) to (6) on sheet HG147 together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 4 (after line 10), after subsection 30-5(1), insert:

(1A) The total number of Commonwealth supported places specified for a year must be equal to or greater than the total number specified in the most recent total allocation pool determination.

(2) Schedule 1, item 2, page 4 (lines 24 to 29), omit paragraph 30-5(4)(b), substitute:

(b) if the year is 2028 or a later year—the number of Commonwealth supported places specified in the most recent total allocation pool determination.

(3) Schedule 1, item 59, page 47 (lines 21 to 26), omit subsection 39-70(2), substitute:

Total equity component

(2) The higher education provider must spend an amount of the grant that is equal to or greater than the *total equity component for the provider for the year on the following activities:

(a) activities that are primarily for the purposes of supporting *eligible equity students to access, participate in and complete *eligible equity courses;

(b) activities that are primarily for the purposes of supporting persons mentioned in paragraph 39-25(1)(b) to access eligible equity courses.

(4) Schedule 1, item 67, page 51 (after line 12), at the end of subsection 41-45(2), add:

Note: For variation and revocation, see subsection 33(3) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.

(5) Schedule 1, item 67, page 51 (lines 13 to 14), omit subsection 41-45(3), substitute:

(3) A determination under subsection (2) for a year:

(a) must be made before the start of that year; and

(b) may only be varied before the end of that year.

(6) Schedule 1, item 67, page 51 (lines 15 to 16), omit subsection 41-45(4).

PARLIAMENTARY COUNSEL

Universities Accord (Opening the Doors of Opportunity) Bill 2026 HG147

Statement of reasons: why certain amendments should be moved as requests

Section 53 of the Constitution is as follows:

Powers of the Houses in respect of legislation

53. Proposed laws appropriating revenue or moneys, or imposing taxation, shall not originate in the Senate. But a proposed law shall not be taken to appropriate revenue or moneys, or to impose taxation, by reason only of its containing provisions for the imposition or appropriation of fines or other pecuniary penalties, or for the demand or payment or appropriation of fees for licences, or fees for services under the proposed law.

The Senate may not amend proposed laws imposing taxation, or proposed laws appropriating revenue or moneys for the ordinary annual services of the Government.

The Senate may not amend any proposed law so as to increase any proposed charge or burden on the people.

The Senate may at any stage return to the House of Representatives any proposed law which the Senate may not amend, requesting, by message, the omission or amendment of any items or provisions therein. And the House of Representatives may, if it thinks fit, make any of such omissions or amendments, with or without modifications.

Except as provided in this section, the Senate shall have equal power with the House of Representatives in respect of all proposed laws.

Amendment (3)

The effect of this amendment is to allow for higher education providers who will receive a certain grant under the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to spend part of the grant in relation to a larger class of persons. This will change the destination of money appropriated, which will increase a burden in relation to an appropriation.

Universities Accord (Opening the Doors of Opportunity) Bill 2026     . SHEET HG147

Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant   .to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000

Amendment (3)

According to the statement of reasons for the government amendments on sheet HG147, amendment (3) is covered by section 53 of the Constitution because it "will change the destination of money appropriated, which will increase a burden in relation to an appropriation". This does not accord with the precedents of the Senate.

The third paragraph of section 53 provides that:

The Senate may not amend any proposed law so as to increase any proposed charge or burden on the people.

This has relevantly been taken to mean that the Senate may not amend a bill to increase the proposed expenditure under a standing appropriation. The amendment in question does not have that effect.

The amendment broadens the purposes for which higher education providers may spend the equity component of their needs-based funding grants. It does not change the provisions determining the amount of those grants or the total proposed expenditure under the standing appropriation. The fact that the grants may be used to support a larger class of persons does not itself increase the amount payable by the Commonwealth.

It is therefore in accordance with the precedents of the Senate for the amendment to be treated as an amendment, rather than a request. This is the same approach that the Senate took in relation to the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Bill 2016 and the Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill 2024.

The coalition will not oppose these amendments on this sheet. Amendment (3) of sheet HG147 is about supporting more kids in specified cohorts to go to universities. As senators would have seen, the coalition has circulated amendments specifically to ensure that. In addition to the funding for regional delivery, regional students are also included as an equity cohort. As I have said, and the coalition has said, we will always stand up for the regions. We know the challenges that kids from the regions face when it comes to going to universities. When the time comes to vote for our amendments, we'll see whether the government also agrees. Amendments (4) to (6) are largely technical and governance measures. They are about the timing of a decision and the requirements for it to be in writing. The implications, as we understand them, are likely to be minimal in practice and may assist to improve certainty in the sector, so we will not oppose them.

That brings me to amendments (1) and (2). The government will tell you that this is all about locking in growth. It's about putting a floor under the total allocation pool for Commonwealth supported places. Well, let me say a few words about that. What we've been asked to do here is to prohibit precisely what the government did in 2025, and it's doing it again now here in 2026. In the evidence before the committee, which I'm a member of, it was clear from pre-eminent experts on higher education, like Professor Mark Warburton, Professor Andrew Norton and Emeritus Professor Clive Smallman, that the government ripped $1 billion out of funding from university places in 2025 and 2026. Let me say that again: at the same time as they were talking about managed growth and opening the doors to opportunity, the Labor Party ripped $1 billion out of funding for Commonwealth supported places. That means that fewer Australian young people are able to go to uni.

It's quite an amazing level of hypocrisy, and it was hidden from the Australian people. Not only did the government cut $1 billion from Commonwealth supported places over this year and the last; they didn't put it in as a budget measure that they knew would be scrutinised by the Australian people. Instead, they buried it in estimates variations. This is all spelled out in detail and in writing in the evidence provided to the Senate committee from Professor Warburton. So let me be clear for everyone in this chamber, for those watching on and for Hansard for posterity: Labor ripped $1 billion out of funding for Commonwealth supported places in 2025 and 2026 and then tried to hide it. For those who want to check, it's laid out in detail not only in Professor Warburton's submission but also on page 4 of his answers to questions on notice from Senator Scarr. Let me read again what Professor Warburton's submission said so that it's written here as the record in this debate:

In the 2024-25 Budget, there was sufficient funding for 2025 and 2026 to fully fund more CSPs than delivered in 2024. Since that time, funding for the 2025 and 2026 years has been reduced by more than $1 billion (around $550m less for 2025 and $470m less for 2026).

Then, at the bottom of page 4 in his answers to questions on notice from Senator Scarr, it spells it out like this: it says that the reduction in funding across 2025 and 2026 is $1,025,520,000. Let's be very clear: there was a cut of $551,701,000 in 2025, and there was a cut of $473,819,000 in 2026. Together, this is a cut of more than $1 billion. That is bombshell evidence, and the answer goes on to explain how the government chose not to put these cuts in its budget and instead presented them as estimates variations, saying:

Most of the downward variation in estimated CGS expenditure for CSPs appears to have occurred as estimates variations, rather than as 'measures' identified in Budget documentation.

So let's be clear about what happened here in relation to items 1 and 2. The Labor Party cut $1 billion out of funding to send Australian kids to university. Those cuts started last year and they're continuing right now. Then they came into this chamber and moved an amendment saying that governments shouldn't be allowed to do that. Well, do you know what? That's not even a question of policy or financial management. It's about integrity. It's about whether you can believe what that lot over there have to say.

Let me also say this: any group or body that wants to be seen as credibly advancing the interests of the sector must, from time to time, be prepared to stand up for the sector even where it is politically inconvenient to this government. That means going beyond the unbalanced and tired old complaints about Job-ready Graduates, where the government has given political licence to criticise even while it adopts its own Job-ready Graduates program as part of its own policy; it means calling out major cuts to university places that Labor has made; and it means things like acknowledging that this government cut $2.3 billion out of research through the Australian Economic Accelerator. It means acknowledging that this government terminated the Trailblazer Universities Program, which generated over $1 billion in research investment in this country, and it means acknowledging that the budget allocation to Australia's research capacity program is now $920 million lower than it was when the coalition left office. It means acknowledging that the government has ripped $1 billion out of Australian student places in the last two years and it means acknowledging that, when it comes to the number of places for Australian students on current funding projections, the government will not surpass the coalition 2021 figures until 2029.

Let me spell that out. In 2021 there were 796,000 places against the census count of only 25.4 million people. Based on Professor Warburton's analysis, it will not be until 2029 that we will see a higher number of places in the system. Therefore, it's lower in every year in between. By 2029, there will be 658,855 CSPs, just over what it was in 2021, but the Australian population is projected to reach 29 million people. On the available data, that is an extra 5,000 places for an extra 3.6 million people.

That brings me back full circle. This government is trying to prohibit the exact thing that they have done for the last two years. What is more, they are saying that, even with those flaws in place, they will achieve far less than what was achieved by the coalition.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 4025:

(1) Schedule 1, item 16, page 28 (lines 19 to 22), omit the definition of over-enrolled places, substitute:

over-enrolled places means:

(a) the number of places worked out under subsection (3); or

(b) if the provider is a *transitioning Table A provider—the number of places worked out under subsection (4);

reduced by the adjustment determined under subsection (6).

(2) Schedule 1, item 16, page 29 (after line 19), at the end of section 33-38, add:

(6) For the purposes of the definition of over-enrolledplaces, the ATEC must:

(a) consider the provider's student retention rate; and

(b) inform the provider, in writing, of the adjustment that the ATEC proposes to determine for the provider under this subsection; and

(c) invite the provider to make a submission, in writing, to the ATEC in relation to the proposed adjustment within 30 days after the giving of the invitation; and

(d) after the earlier of the following:

(i) receiving the provider's submission (if any);

(ii) the end of the period of 30 days after the giving of the invitation;

determine, in writing, an adjustment for the provider for the reference year.

(7) The ATEC must consider any submissions made by the provider in accordance with an invitation given under subsection (6).

(8) An adjustment under subsection (6) may be zero.

(3) Schedule 1, item 16, page 29 (line 22), omit "lesser of", substitute "greater of".

This sheet addresses the most substantial drawback of this bill. As we've said previously, the overenrolment provisions of this bill penalise providers if they educate more students than they are paid to by the taxpayer. Now, this has three main drawbacks for the taxpayer. It means that we pay more money to educate the same number of students. It is anti productivity. For the university it means they are not able to respond to student demand and that there is no flexibility to respond to factors beyond the university's control. For the student it means less choice. It means they are less likely to be able to study at the university of their first preference, and that's because universities are incentivised not to offer more places lest they get slapped with a penalty. And there's a perverse incentive too: as drafted, the legislation allows the situation whereby a university is penalised if it improves its retention rate.

This amendment addresses both of those issues in a way far better than what was proposed by the Greens. Rather than proposing a straight 105 per cent buffer across the board. This gives smaller providers more certainty. It gives them more headroom, it means that they won't get hit with a penalty unless they hit the proposed 750 student limit and it tilts the balance in favour of the newer, smaller providers, not the mega-universities. The government and Greens have not addressed the perverse incentive, presumably because they think the ATEC will never make a mistake and there will never be unforeseen circumstances like an economic downturn, which history tells us will lead to greater retention. They are counting on universities never being unfairly slapped with an overenrolment penalty.

This is a sensible improvement that is materially better than the alternatives on offer, and I commend them to the Senate.

The question is that opposition amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 4025 be agreed to.

Colleagues and Chair, what I propose to do is speak to all my amendments and then I'll move them all one by one at the end. That means we can save bouncing backwards and forwards from the chamber. I'll start firstly with opposition amendment (1) on sheet 4027. I move the amendment:

(1) Schedule 1, item 59, page 41 (after line 24), after subparagraph (1)(b)(ii), insert:

(iia) immediately before the person enrolled in the *eligible equity course, the person's usual place of residence was in a *high priority area;

This is an amendment that backs in regional students. It says that, in the primary legislation, if you're a kid from the bush, you should be eligible for support. We know that regional students often face greater challenges, and we want more of them to be able to go to uni and succeed if that's what they want to do. That's why we in government set up measures like the tertiary access payment, because we know that that sort of help can be a game changer for kids from the regions. So we are saying to the government: put it in the primary legislation.

Let me be clear. Regional students could be listed as recipients of support under section 39-25(1)(b)(iii). But why not put those kids in the primary legislation in the same way that other groups are listed in section 39-25? It's about showing your support for the regions. That's who we're supporting with this amendment. For those in this place who don't support the amendment, it will be for you to explain why you did not support regional kids.

Later on, I will move an amendment on sheet 4029. This amendment is about the minister's extraordinary overreach in this bill. The coalition belled the cat on this issue, in a range of areas, when the bill was introduced, but one of the most egregious examples 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. This is in section 36-65 of the Higher Education Support Act, or HESA. Fair enough. You're a university. You agree to a condition; you must abide by it. We pointed out that, for some reason, the minister was changing that. The new sections 36 -65 introduced by this bill says, among other things, that the minister may in writing determine conditions that a specified higher education provider must comply with for the purposes of the division. What does that mean? On the drafting that was introduced, it means that, at any time, the minister could impose a condition on a university, and the university would be required by law to comply with it. They would not agree to it. The minister just decides, and the uni must comply. The minister is not at all required to consult. The minister is not even required to publish the condition. And the condition must be retrospective.

It is unfettered in its scope. As we specifically pointed out, it can deal with industrial relations matters with an extraordinary degree of power. It is not subject to disallowance in this parliament, and it is not subject to merits review. The government changed this in the House, but they changed it in a very narrow way that was all about their own sectional interests, because the changes they made in the House specifically and deliberately removed from the minister the power to make conditions in relation to industrial relations conditions. You can imagine why that happened—how the NTEU dropped their bundle at the prospect of a future minister having control over their industrial conditions, how they rang the minister's office and told them to fix it. You can imagine the flurry of activity that occurred.

Let me be very clear here: the coalition finished talking on this bill around 12.45 pm on 2 July in the other place. This was the first time that the issues with the power were pointed out. The next day of sitting was 11 August, and the government amendments in the House were ready to go before the very next sitting day. We know this because, helpfully, the amendments in the other place had a time stamp. The government amendments were finalised on 10 August 2026 at 3.13 and four seconds, to be precise. It's good to see that the government is responsible for the sectional interests of its funders, but the amendment in this provision in the other place did not go far enough. Like us, many in the crossbenches and the sector at large say that these powers should not be centralised in the hands of the minister, so section 36-65 should go.

In dealing with sheet 4032 amendments, which I'll move later as well, this is a very straightforward, sensible amendment. This is about competitive neutrality. It's about treating providers who provide the same products in the same way. The bill establishes a legislative framework for managing international students. And, as we've said, it sets out how those international student places are allocated to every provider in the system. Under this bill, only table-A and table-B universities are entitled to be consulted about their allocations. The mind boggles. When you're talking about independent providers who are not table-A or table-B universities, you're saying to them that they are not entitled to be consulted about their own financial future—their own livelihood. This is silly. It's unfair. It needs to go. This is a commonsense amendment that restores some basic fairness.

Then I'll go to sheet 4033, which I'll also move later on in this debate. This amendment goes to one of the core issues that we think is missing in this legislation, and that's a focus on quality. Quality should be the watchword, but it's simply not found at all in this bill. It should be, and it starts with the National Tertiary Education Objective. It's worth revisiting what the current version does, because it will be an iron rod that guides this new regulator. What does the objective say? This legislation says that the National Tertiary Education Objective is an objective for tertiary education in Australia, firstly to promote a strong, equitable and resilient democracy and secondly to drive national economic and social development and environmental sustainability. Then, if that wasn't clear enough, the legislation goes on:

When performing functions and exercising powers, the ATEC and the ATEC Commissioners must have regard to the National Tertiary Education Objective …

This is an explicit requirement in law. It guarantees that, in circumstances where they would otherwise be irrelevant, the ATEC must be thinking about social development, whatever that means, and environmental sustainability. And that's important, because every administrative lawyer will tell you: when a body like the ATEC makes a decision, it must have regard to relevant considerations and must not have regard to irrelevant considerations. Under the law, if a matter is relevant, you must take into account. If it's not relevant, you must not take it into account. So, absent the requirement in law, ATEC would be required to take social development and sustainability into account where they are relevant, but would be required to not take them into account where they are irrelevant. Putting it in legislation changes that. It says that, to be a valid decision, the ATEC must take those things into account regardless. Under the National Tertiary Education Objective right now the ATEC is required that deeply political but otherwise irrelevant considerations—like social development and environmental sustainability—must infect every decision that ATEC makes. You're opening yourself up to every green lawfare activist who wants to challenge a decision about a provider in the courts because it doesn't adequately deal with the climate change or the latest progressive social trend. That in itself is bad enough, but worse than that is the objective misses the obvious. It fails to set the things that are and should be relevant to decisions about tertiary education in this country—things like teaching and learning, research, scholarship, productivity, positive student experiences, competition, innovation across the sector, Australian values, efficiency, value for money both for the taxpayer and for the student, and the reduction of regulatory burdens. Those are the things that a regulator should be taking into account when making decisions about our tertiary sector. Those are things you'd expect and hope to see.

It's not just me saying this. It's not just the Liberal Party saying this. It's even bodies like the NTU—no great ally of centre-right politics. It's no excuse to say that it was a recommendation of the universities accord—that does not bind the government. It is for governments to consider a recommendation and to weigh up the justification powers provided, the pros and cons, and the implications. Deciding to write into the legislation is an act of policy decision by the government. Once it's in your legislation, you own it.

The National Tertiary Education Objective as drafted is not fit to proceed. Amending it should be a necessary but not sufficient condition for legislating anything like an ATEC. This amendment changes it. It's simple, it's straightforward and, I would like to think, it's uncontroversial. It says that the objective of tertiary education in Australia is exactly what you'd expect it to be—teaching, learning, research, scholarship, productivity, positive student experiences, competition, innovation, efficiency, value for money, and support for Australian values. If the government does not support it, they'll be sending a very clear message they will be prioritising misplaced pride over substance, and they'll be voting against teaching, against learning, against research and against support for Australian values. Let them explain that. Let them give excuses for why they wanted to vote against teaching, against learning, against research and against Australian values in our tertiary sector, and let it be on their heads.

We have a number of other amendments which I'll also speak to. I will later come to sheet 4037. This sheet goes to a matter that should not be controversial. Antisemitism is not just about Jews; it's about all Australians. Antisemitism is a national security issue—more than 30 of our most senior national security, defence and intelligence leaders said so. Universities have been told now by both sides of politics that they need to clean up their acts and prevent the antisemitism that has taken root on their campuses. But instead of doing something serious to prevent and respond to antisemitism, they debated the definition of the word. This is absurd. These changes end the ridiculous situation where conduct that is antisemitic at one campus on one side of Sydney is acceptable at another campus on the other side of Sydney. They establish in law a single national definition of antisemitism for higher education in Australia. It is the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism—the definition that, as the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion itself said, has been adopted by the Commonwealth and state governments. It is the definition that was adopted by the royal commission itself, it is a definition that the Prime Minister himself expressly says he accepts, and it's a definition that explicitly allows criticism of Israel in the same way that we'd criticise every other country.

So we're asking the government to please vote for its own policy. The amendments on this sheet explicitly require universities to prevent, combat and respond to antisemitism. They ensure that taxpayers aren't funding research to promote, enable or amplify antisemitism. They make sure that the shameful displays that we saw in the encampments never, ever happen again and that we don't have the academics taking children to encampments to call for intifada. We know what intifada looks like in this country: it looks like 15 people being murdered at Bondi Beach. So, to the government, we say this: support these amendments. We are asking you to vote simply for your own policy. We're asking you to set it down in law to send universities the clearest message that our parliament expects them to rid their campuses of the Jew hate that they have allowed to fester. Doing so unequivocally is in the interests of all Australians.

Later on, I'll come to and move amendments on sheet 4096. These are sensible and straightforward amendments that list two university colleagues as table B universities: the University of Theology and Alphacrucis University College. They are both reputable, highly effective and respected institutions that have met all the thresholds required to be listed as table B providers. We are asking the government and all those in this parliament to recognise these wonderful institutions and list them in legislation. In doing that, can I take a moment to recognise, as is appropriate, that both of these institutions deserve to be recognised in legislation and that that wouldn't happen without the support of the government. I thank the government very much indeed for their constructive approach. For full transparency, I note that I've studied at Alphacrucis myself—before it was a university, mind you—many years ago. It is a fine institution, and I'm pleased that this amendment is being proposed here today. I look forward to these two very fine institutions being recognised in law.

In the time I've got left, I'll deal with a few more. We've got amendments on sheet 4106. These are amendments that say one simple thing. They say that regional means regional—it is the regional funding guarantee. They ensure that funding for regional campuses goes to regional campuses. We support funding for regional campuses. It is a simple fact that regional delivery costs more. The cohorts are smaller. There are greater difficulties in recruiting staff. There is often a requirement, sometimes set down in state or territory laws, to maintain facilities across multiple campuses or sustain a breadth of course offerings beyond what is economically sustainable. The regional component of needs based funding is intended to address exactly that.

I think I spoke about this when I gave my speech in the second reading debate. I made clear that there are two major flaws in the regional funding. First, the definition of a high-priority area was not confined to regional, remote and very remote Australia. It would have allowed the minister to specify any area he wanted as a high-priority area. That would be the inner west of Sydney or the inner north of Melbourne. It undermines the intent of the funding. Second, the bill allows regional funding to go to a university if it has a course that is 'administered in the regions'. Make no mistake: this is a real concern of the regional providers. They have identified the risk that every large metro university will set up a regional hub with a laptop and a local administrator to 'administer' their courses regardless of where those courses are being delivered or where they're delivered from. The amendment closes the loophole, and that means a win for the regions, a win for the taxpayer and a win for the country. I will commend those to the Senate when we move them.

The other amendment that I'll be addressing today is the amendment on sheet 4107. This amendment corrects what appears to be either a drafting error or an arbitrary distinction that prevents postgraduate courses of study from being eligible for needs based funding. It preserves some of the flexibility that saw extraordinary success for the Job-ready Graduates program in postgraduate cohorts. There are very good reasons why the minister has included Job-ready Graduates in five successive portfolio budget statements. The Job-ready Graduates scheme drastically reduced the amount paid by teachers, nurses and others in their field of study. At the commencement of the Job-ready Graduates scheme in 2021, the maximum annual student contribution for education and nursing was $3,950, compared with the $6,804 rate that applied previously. This was a reduction of approximately 42 per cent. In other words, since Labor came to power, every single teacher who has graduated from a higher education institution in a Commonwealth supported place has been a beneficiary of Job-ready Graduates. It is the same with the nurses and the STEM graduates. They all paid much, much less. In any balanced discussion, these benefits, along with others in the nursing, STEM and other fields, would also feature.

In the inquiry into this bill, the committee received a significant contribution from the Council of Australian Postgraduate Associations, CAPA. CAPA pointed out that one of the features of Job-ready Graduates was to allow universities greater flexibility to move Commonwealth supported places between levels of study. CAPA linked that flexibility to an increase in subsidised postgraduate opportunities, allowing institutions to respond to demand and students to undertake study that might otherwise have been available only at full fees. CAPA's evidence highlights that Commonwealth supported postgraduate course load increased by 8,422, or 17.2 per cent, between 2020 and 2024. Health represented about 72 per cent of the total expansion in postgraduate CSP load. That is an extraordinary increase in the number of postgraduate qualified personnel entering the workforce in fields which increasingly require postgraduate qualifications, and it particularly benefits regional Australia, where universities needed and used the flexibility to offer postgraduate courses. What this amendment does is preserve some of that flexibility by ensuring that needs based funding is available for postgraduate courses as much as it is for undergraduate courses and levelling the playing field.

Senator O'Sullivan, do you have further contributions you wish to make?

I only have one more paragraph, actually.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: That may be the case, but the standing orders provide that you can only have two consecutive 10-minute slots. If another senator wishes to make a very—oh, sorry. The minister is seeking the call.

Just to assist the chamber, I'll give an indication of the government's support and otherwise. I'm really doing that to assist the chamber. The government will oppose amendments on sheets 4027, 4029, 4033, 4032, 4037, 4036 and 4107. The government will support amendments on sheets 4096 and 4106, and we thank Senator O'Sullivan for those amendments.

I will just wrap up my comments. What I was saying is that the amendment on sheet 4107, which I was alluding to, preserves some of the flexibility by ensuring that needs based funding is available for postgraduate courses as much as it is for undergraduate courses, and so it levels the playing field and removes the disincentive that would otherwise apply for higher level degrees, ultimately for the benefit of students.

The question is that opposition amendments on sheet 4027 be agreed to.

by leave—I move amendments on sheets 4029, 4032, 4033, 4036 and 4107 together:

SHEET 4029

(1) Schedule 1, item 22, page 31 (line 22) to page 32 (line 21), omit the item, substitute:

22 Section 36-65

Repeal the section.

_____

SHEET 4032

(1) Schedule 2, item 15, page 56 (line 16), omit "that are Table A or Table B providers".

(2) Schedule 2, item 15, page 57 (line 25), omit "must consult certain providers", substitute "must consult providers".

(3) Schedule 2, item 15, page 58 (line 19), omit "that is a Table A or Table B provider".

_____

SHEET 4033

(1) Page 63 (after line 13), after Schedule 3, insert:

Schedule 3A — Amendment relating to National Tertiary Education Objective

Universities Accord (Australian Tertiary Education Commission) Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Act 2026.

1 Subsection 13(1)

Omit the subsection, substitute:

(1) The National Tertiary Education Objective is the objective for tertiary education in Australia to:

(a) develop a world-class tertiary education sector that drives excellence in teaching and learning; and

(b) deliver world-leading research and scholarship, particularly in strategic areas of national significance; and

(c) improve productivity by developing a highly skilled, adaptable and productive workforce; and

(d) establish close links between tertiary education providers, industry and business to strengthen student outcomes and support innovation across the economy; and

(e) deliver positive student experiences across the tertiary education sector; and

(f) promote competition and innovation across the tertiary education sector; and

(g) support Australian values, including equality of opportunity, the rule of law, and Western liberal democratic traditions; and

(h) drive efficiency across the sector to provide value for money for students and the Australian taxpayer; and

(i) reduce regulatory burdens on the tertiary education sector where practicable.

_____

SHEET 4036

(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 10 (line 5), at the end of section 30-50, add:

; and (c) the criteria used by the *ATEC in determining each allocation made under subsection 30-15(1) or (1A) for a year.

_____

SHEET 4107

(1) Schedule 1, item 59, page 42 (line 4), after "undergraduate course of study", insert "or a postgraduate course of study".

The question is that opposition amendments on sheets 4029, 4032, 4033, 4036 and 4107 be agreed to.

by leave—Can I please record my opposition to 4033.

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 4037 together:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 5), omit "Schedules 2 to 4", substitute "Schedules 2 to 5".

(2) Page 68 (after line 17), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 5 — Amendments relating to antisemitism in higher education

Australian Research Council Act 2001

1 Section 4

Insert

antisemitism: see section 4A.

2 At the end of Part 1

Add:

4A Meaning of antisemitism

antisemitism means a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.

Note 1: Manifestations of antisemitism might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for "why things go wrong." It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.

Examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to the following:

(a) calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion;

(b) making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective—such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions;

(c) accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews;

(d) denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust);

(e) accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust;

(f) accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations;

(g) denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour;

(h) applying double standards by requiring of it a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation;

(i) using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis;

(j) Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis;

(k) holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

Note 2: The definition in this section, and the material in Note 1, is taken from the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's working definition of antisemitism, as published as at 14 December 2025 on the Alliance's website (http://holocaustremembrance.com).

3 After paragraph 49( 2)( eb )

Insert:

(ec) require that the organisation, and each researcher involved in the research project concerned, must not promote, enable or amplify antisemitism; and

4 At the end of section 58

Add:

(3) Without limiting subparagraph (1)(a)(i) or subsection (2), the eligibility criteria must include that an application must not relate to an organisation, research program or research project that promotes, enables or amplifies antisemitism.

(4) Without limiting subparagraph (1)(a)(iv), the rules must deal with any other matters that the Board considers appropriate to ensure that financial assistance to an organisation under a funding agreement is not used to promote, enable or amplify antisemitism.

5 Transitional provision — variation of funding approvals

A funding approval made under section 48 of the Australian Research Council Act 2001 that is in force when this item commencesis revoked, by force of this item, at the end of the 6-month period beginning at that time unless the approval is varied, before the end of that period, to require that the relevant organisation, and each researcher involved in the research project concerned, must not promote, enable or amplify antisemitism.

Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011

6 Section 5

Insert

antisemitic means the conduct of expressing antisemitism.

antisemitism: see section 5A.

7 After section 5

Insert:

5A Meaning of antisemitism

antisemitism means a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.

Note 1: Manifestations of antisemitism might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for "why things go wrong." It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.

Examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to the following:

(a) calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion;

(b) making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective—such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions;

(c) accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews;

(d) denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust);

(e) accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust;

(f) accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations;

(g) denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour;

(h) applying double standards by requiring of it a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation;

(i) using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis;

(j) Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis;

(k) holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

Note 2: The definition in this section, and the material in Note 1, is taken from the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's working definition of antisemitism, as published as at 14 December 2025 on the Alliance's website (http://holocaustremembrance.com).

8 Paragraph 24(a)

Omit "31", substitute "31A".

9 After section 31

Insert:

31A Condition — preventing, combatting and responding to antisemitism

(1) A registered higher education provider must adopt and implement for all purposes the definition of antisemitism in this Act.

(2) A registered higher education provider must ensure the provider prevents, combats and responds to antisemitism.

(3) Without limiting subsection (2), a registered higher education provider must take appropriate steps to:

(a) recognise the specific and unique nature of antisemitism; and

(b) understand how antisemitism manifests in modern times; and

(c) publicly reject antisemitism in all its forms; and

(d) put in place adequate arrangements to deal with antisemitism on campus, after appropriate consideration of:

(i) the adequacy of their policies and rules, and the nature and extent of their enforcement of these policies and rules; and

(ii) their disciplinary procedures and complaints handling processes; and

(iii) any differences between their approach to antisemitism and other forms of discrimination; and

(e) put in place adequate arrangements for the security and safety of Jewish students, academics, staff and visitors, including for:

(i) physical safety; and

(ii) the display of cultural and religious symbols; and

(iii) barring or expelling people from campus for antisemitic activity; and

(f) adopt and implement policies and procedures to prevent academics, staff and students from engaging in:

(i) de facto boycotts against collaborations with Jewish or Israeli academics, institutions, students or staff; or

(ii) any other antisemitic discrimination or vilification; and

(g) take steps to ensure that antisemitic content is not included in course and teaching materials, or delivered during lectures, tutorials and other classes; and

(h) provide adequate support arrangements for academics, staff and students experiencing antisemitism on or off campus.

10 After subsection 58(1)

Insert:

(1A) Without limiting subsection (1), the Threshold Standards must include standards against which the compliance of a registered higher education provider with the condition of registration in section 31A can be assessed.

11 Application provision — registered higher education providers

Section 31A of the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011, as inserted by this Schedule, applies in relation to registered higher education providers whether registered before or after the commencement of this item.

The question is that opposition amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 4037 be agreed to.

by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 4096 and (1) to (3) on sheet 4106 together:

SHEET 4096

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (after table item 4), insert:

(2) Page 52 (after line 11), after Schedule 1, insert:

Schedule 1A — Amendments relating to Table B providers

Higher Education Support Act 2003

1 Subsection 16-20(1) (table)

Before:

insert:

2 Transitional rules

(1) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, make rules prescribing matters of a transitional nature (including prescribing any saving or application provisions) relating to the amendments made by this Schedule.

(2) To avoid doubt, the rules may not do the following:

(a) create an offence or civil penalty;

(b) provide powers of:

(i) arrest or detention; or

(ii) entry, search or seizure;

(c) impose a tax;

(d) set an amount to be appropriated from the Consolidated Revenue Fund under an appropriation in this Act;

(e) directly amend the text of this Act.

_____

SHEET 4106

(1) Schedule 1, item 59, page 44 (line 21), omit "administered or delivered", substitute "delivered (by any mode)".

(2) Schedule 1, item 59, page 44 (after line 27), at the end of subsection (1), add:

Note: For example, the mode of delivery of a unit may be online or face-to-face, or both.

(3) Schedule 1, item 59, page 45 (lines 1 to 6), omit subsection (4), substitute:

(4) An area is a high priority area if it is a Remoteness Area categorised under the *ABS Remoteness Structure as Inner Regional Australia, Outer Regional Australia, Remote Australia or Very Remote Australia.

Question agreed to.

by leave—At the request of Senator Hanson, I move One Nation amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 3915 together:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add:

(2) Page 68 (after line 17), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 5 — Amendments relating to the publication of the average income of graduates

Higher Education Support Act 2003

1 After section 36-65

Insert:

36-67 Providers to comply with regulations under section 238-1B

A higher education provider must comply with requirements prescribed by regulations made for the purposes of section 238-1B (publication of average income of relevant graduates) to the extent (if any) to which the requirements are applicable to the higher education provider.

2 After section 238-1A

Insert:

238-1B Publication of average income of relevant graduates

(1) The regulations must establish a scheme to facilitate the publication of information about the average taxable income, for an income year, of relevant graduates:

(a) 2 income years after graduating; and

(b) 5 income years after graduating; and

(c) 10 income years after graduating.

(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the regulations may provide for and in relation to the following:

(a) the publication of information about the average taxable income, for an income year, of relevant graduates who have completed a specified *course of study at a specified higher education provider;

(b) the publication of information about the average taxable income, for an income year, of relevant graduates who have received a specified class of *higher education award from a specified higher education provider.

(3) The regulations may require, in prescribed circumstances, a higher education provider to publish, on the higher education provider's website, information about the average taxable income, for an income year, of relevant graduates who have undertaken a *course of study with that higher education provider.

(4) The regulations may require a higher education provider to give to the *Commissioner information (including *personal information) that is in its possession relating to students that the *Commissioner reasonably requires for the purposes of a scheme established for the purposes of subsection (1).

(5) In this section:

graduate meansobtain a *higher education award.

relevant graduate has the meaning prescribed by the regulations.

These amendments relate to the publication of the average income of graduates. The coalition will support this measure. It's a simple and straightforward transparency measure that allows students, parents, taxpayers and everyone with an interest in higher education to draw a clear and direct link to how they perform in the workplace. It will help students make informed decisions about their prospects, and it incentivises providers to align their degrees with employment outcomes. This is a sensible measure. That is why we'll support it.

The question is that One Nation amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 3915 be agreed to.

I am going to run through my amendments. I will probably be five to seven minutes and won't be forcing divisions; I know people have things to do. I will give a brief explanation of each together now rather than one by one. I seek leave to move the amendments on sheets 4064, 4065, 4066, 4068, 4069, 4070, 4072, 4073, 4075, 4076, 4077, 4078, 4079, 4080, 4081, 4083, 4084, 4085, 4099 under my name together.

Leave granted.

I move:

SHEET 4064

(1) Schedule 1, item 22, page 31 (line 22) to page 32 (line 21), omit the item, substitute:

22 Section 36-65

Repeal the section.

_____

SHEET 4065

(1) Schedule 2, item 15, page 57 (lines 5 to 10), omit subsection 46B(3), substitute:

Determinations must not specify particular matters

(3) The matters specified in an international allocation pool determination:

(a) must not apply to a particular ESOS registered higher education provider; and

(b) must be limited to system-wide considerations that apply to all ESOS registered higher education providers.

(3A) To avoid doubt, in making an international allocation pool determination, the Minister must not:

(a) direct the ATEC to allocate a number of international student places to a particular ESOS registered higher education provider; or

(b) specify a number of overseas students that may commence a particular higher education course or kind of higher education course; or

(c) otherwise determine an allocation by the ATEC for a particular ESOS registered higher education provider.

(2) Schedule 2, item 15, page 57 (lines 15 to 19), omit subsection 46B(5).

_____

SHEET 4066

(1) Schedule 2, item 15, page 57 (after line 10), after subsection 46B(3), insert:

(3A) However, if the Minister varies an international allocation pool determination:

(a) the varied determination must not specify matters that apply to a particular ESOS registered higher education provider; and

(b) the matters specified in the varied determination must be limited to system-wide considerations that apply to all ESOS registered higher education providers.

(2) Schedule 2, item 15, page 59 (after line 18), after subsection 46E(1), insert:

(1A) However, the Minister must not direct the ATEC to vary the allocation.

(3) Schedule 2, item 15, page 59 (before line 19), before subsection 46E(2), insert:

(1B) Despite regulations made for the purposes of paragraph 44(2)(b) of the Legislation Act 2003, section 42 (disallowance) of that Act applies to a legislative instrument made under subsection (1).

(4) Schedule 2, item 15, page 59 (lines 19 to 23), omit subsection 46E(2), substitute:

(2) The direction may specify:

(a) matters that the ATEC may take into account when considering whether to vary the allocation; and

(b) matters that the ATEC may comply with if the ATEC varies the allocation as a result of the direction.

(3) However:

(a) the direction must not specify matters that apply to a particular ESOS registered higher education provider; and

(b) the matters specified in the direction must be limited to system-wide considerations that apply to all ESOS registered higher education providers.

(4) To avoid doubt, the ATEC is not required to vary an allocation as a result of the direction.

(5) Schedule 2, page 60 (after line 27), after item 15, insert:

15A Subsection 71(1) (note)

Repeal the note.

15B After subsection 71(1)

Insert:

(1A) Despite regulations made for the purposes of paragraph 44(2)(b) of the Legislation Act 2003, section 42 (disallowance) of that Act applies to a legislative instrument made under subsection (1).

_____

SHEET 4068

(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 10 (line 10), omit "in writing", substitute "by legislative instrument".

(2) Schedule 1, item 2, page 10 (after line 15), after subsection 30-55(2), insert:

Allocation must not cap places for Indigenous students

(2A) The Minister, in making an allocation under subsection (1), must not impose a limit on the number of the Commonwealth supported places in a provider's *demand driven courses profile that can be provided by the provider in respect of *Indigenous persons.

(3) Schedule 1, item 2, page 10 (lines 27 and 28), omit subsection 30-55(4).

(4) Schedule 1, item 2, page 11 (after line 5), after paragraph 30-60(1)(a), insert:

(aa) a course of study that:

(i) is undertaken by an Indigenous person; and

(ii) is a *postgraduate course of study; and

(iii) is not a course of study in medicine;

(5) Schedule 1, item 2, page 11 (line 22), omit "in writing", substitute "by legislative instrument".

(6) Schedule 1, page 12 (after line 3), after subsection 30-65(4), insert:

Allocation must not cap places for Indigenous students

(4A) The Minister, in making an allocation under subsection (1), must not impose a limit on the number of the Commonwealth supported places in a provider's *medical courses profile that can be provided by the provider in respect of *Indigenous persons.

(7) Schedule 1, item 2, page 12 (lines 4 and 5), omit subsection 30-65(5).

_____

SHEET 4069

(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 4 (after line 10), after subsection 30-5(1), insert:

Total number of places must not decrease

(1A) However, the Minister must not make a *total allocation pool determination that specifies a total number of Commonwealth supported places for a specified year that is lower than the total number of Commonwealth supported places specified in the total allocation pool determination for the previous year (a negative determination).

(1B) Despite subsection (1A), the Minister may make a negative determination if the Minister is satisfied, on reasonable grounds, that exceptional circumstances exist.

(1C) If the Minister makes a negative determination, the explanatory statement (within the meaning of the Legislation Act 2003) for the determination must include:

(a) a description of:

(i) the exceptional circumstances giving rise to the negative determination; and

(ii) the anticipated duration of the exceptional circumstances; and

(b) evidence for the exceptional circumstances.

(2) Schedule 1, item 2, page 5 (lines 24 and 25), omit paragraphs 30-5(9)(a) and (b), substitute:

(a) a *total allocation pool determination that is not a negative determination; or

(b) a variation of a total allocation pool determination that is not a variation of a negative determination.

Note: To avoid doubt, section 42 (disallowance) of the Legislation Act 2003 applies to a negative determination and a variation of a negative determination.

_____

SHEET 4070

(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 7 (line 30) to page 8 (line 14), omit subsections 30-25(1) and (2), substitute:

Core student load

(1) The core student load for a *Table A provider for a year (the reference year) is the number of Commonwealth supported places that is:

(a) if the reference year is 2027—the *number of Commonwealth supported places (rounded up to the nearest whole number) provided by the provider in *higher education courses during the most recent year for which, as at immediately before the reference year, there was *verified student data for any higher education provider; or

(b) if the reference year is 2028 or a later year—the greater of the following:

(i) the provider's *domestic student profile for the immediately preceding year;

(ii) the *number of Commonwealth supported places (rounded up to the nearest whole number) provided by the provider in *higher education courses during the most recent year for which, as at the time the *ATEC first made an allocation under subsection 30-15(1) for the reference year, there was *verified student data for any higher education provider.

_____

SHEET 4072

(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 11 (lines 28 to 33), omit subsections 30-65(2) and (3), substitute:

(2) The Minister may make the allocation by specifying a whole number of places.

(2) Schedule 1, item 2, page 12 (after lines 3), after subsection 30-65(4), insert:

Minimum number of places that may be allocated

(4A) The *medical courses profile for a year (the reference year) for a provider mentioned in subsection (1) must be no less than:

(a) if no allocation has previously been made to the provider under subsection (1)—the *number of Commonwealth supported places provided by the provider in *medical courses during the most recent year for which, as at immediately before the reference year, there was *verified student data for the provider; or

(b) otherwise—the higher of:

(i) the provider's medical courses profile for the most recent year for which such an allocation was made; and

(ii) the *number of Commonwealth supported places provided by the provider in *medical courses during the most recent year for which, as at immediately before the reference year, there was *verified student data for the provider.

_____

SHEET 4073

(1) Schedule 1, item 59, page 41 (lines 23 and 24), omit subparagraph 39-25(1)(b)(ii), substitute:

(ii) at the time the person enrolled with the provider, or in the unit, the person was from a *low socioeconomic background;

_____

SHEET 4075

(1) Schedule 1, item 59, page 41 (line 14), omit "all", substitute "both".

(2) Schedule 1, item 59, page 41 (line 18), omit subparagraph 39-25(1)(a)(ii).

(3) Schedule 1, item 59, page 41 (line 31) to page 42 (line 8), omit subsection 39-25(3).

(4) Schedule 1, item 59, page 42 (lines 15 and 16) omit "an *eligible equity course", substitute "a *course of study".

(5) Schedule 1, item 59, page 47 (lines 21 to 26), omit subsection 39-70(2), substitute:

Total equity component

(2) The higher education provider must spend an amount of the grant that is equal to or greater than the *total equity component for the provider for the year on activities that are primarily for either or both of the following purposes:

(a) supporting *eligible equity students to access, participate in and complete *courses of study;

(b) supporting under-represented students to access, participate in and complete courses of study.

(6) Schedule 1, item 59, page 48 (line 4), omit "either or both", substitute "any".

(7) Schedule 1, item 59, page 48 (line 9), at the end of subsection 39-70(4), add:

; (c) supporting under-represented students to access, participate in and complete courses of study.

(8) Schedule 1, item 59, page 48 (after line 17), at the end of section 39-70, add:

Under represented students

(7) For the purposes of paragraph (2)(b) and (4)(c), the ATEC may determine, in writing, that a student, or a student in a class of students, is an under-represented student.

(8) In making a determination under subsection (7), the ATEC must:

(a) consult with higher education providers; and

(b) consider the need to improve the following:

(i) student outreach;

(ii) aspiration-building;

(iii) access to higher education;

(iv) participation and retention of existing students.

(9) Schedule 1, item 66, page 49 (lines 23 and 24), omit the definition of eligible equity course in subclause 1(1) of Schedule 1.

(10) Schedule 3, page 62 (after line 21), after item 3, insert:

3A At the end of subsection 29(4)

Add:

; (c) include terms that require publication of the following:

(i) total expenditure under a grant under Part 2-2B of the Higher Education Support Act 2003 for a year for the purposes of paragraph 39-70(2)(b) and (4)(c) of that Act;

(ii) outcomes as a result of that expenditure.

_____

SHEET 4076

(1) Schedule 1, item 59, page 47 (line 24), omit "for the year".

(2) Schedule 1, item 59, page 47 (after line 26), insert:

Note: The amount may be spent in the year the grant is received or a later year: see subsections (6) to (10).

(3) Schedule 1, item 59, page 48 (line 4), omit "for the year".

(4) Schedule 1, item 59, page 48 (after line 9), insert:

Note: The amount may be spent in the year the grant is received or a later year: see subsections (6) to (10).

(5) Schedule 1, item 59, page 48 (lines 14 to 17), omit subsection 39-70(6), substitute:

Rollover of grant amounts

(6) If a higher education provider does not spend either or both of the amounts referred to in subsections (2) and (4) (the unspent amount) before the end of the year, then the unspent amount is taken to be granted to the body under this section in respect of

(a) the next following year; or

(b) a period determined by the Secretary under subsection (9).

(7) The amount taken to be granted under subsection (6) is taken to be granted for the same purpose as the original grant.

(8) The grant taken to be made under subsection (6) is taken to be made under the same conditions as the conditions of the original grant—except the grant is taken to be made in respect of the next following year or the period (if any) determined by the Secretary under subsection (9).

(9) For the purpose of paragraph (6)(b) the Secretary may, in writing, determine a period in respect of which an unspent amount is taken to have been granted to the body.

(10) The Secretary may, in writing, determine reporting requirements for the purposes of this section.

_____

SHEET 4077

(1) Schedule 2, item 15, page 56 (line 4), omit "a period", substitute "a calendar year".

(2) Schedule 2, item 15, page 56 (line 6), omit "the period", substitute "the year".

(3) Schedule 2, item 15, page 56 (line 9), omit "the period", substitute "the year".

(4) Schedule 2, item 15, page 56 (lines 25 to 33), omit subsection 46B(1), substitute:

(1) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, make a determination (an international allocation pool determination) specifying:

(a) the number of overseas students that may commence a course of education with ESOS registered higher education providers during a specified calendar year; and

(b) matters that the ATEC must comply with in relation to making an allocation for the year.

Note: The Minister may vary an international allocation pool determination (see subsection 33(3) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901).

When determinations must be made

(1A) The Minister must make an international allocation pool determination:

(a) for 2027—before 1 January 2027; and

(b) for 2028 or a later year—before 30 June in the immediately preceding year.

(1B) To avoid doubt, if an international allocation pool determination has not been made for a calendar year (the current year), the international allocation pool determination for the previous calendar year applies for the current year until a new international allocation pool determination has been made.

(5) Schedule 2, item 15, page 57 (line 4), omit "the period", substitute "the year".

(6) Schedule 2, item 15, page 57 (line 22), omit "a period", substitute "a calendar year".

(7) Schedule 2, item 15, page 57 (line 24), omit "the period", substitute "the year".

(8) Schedule 2, item 15, page 57 (line 32), omit "a period", substitute "a calendar year".

(9) Schedule 2, item 15, page 57 (line 33), omit "the period", substitute "the year".

(10) Schedule 2, item 15, page 58 (lines 3 and 4), omit "the period", substitute "the year".

(11) Schedule 2, item 15, page 58 (line 7), omit "a period", substitute "a calendar year".

(12) Schedule 2, item 15, page 58 (line 9), omit "that period", substitute "that year".

(13) Schedule 2, item 15, page 58 (line 26), omit "a period", substitute "a calendar year".

(14) Schedule 2, item 15, page 58 (line 28), omit "that period", substitute "that year".

(15) Schedule 2, item 15, page 59 (line 14), omit "the period", substitute "the year".

(16) Schedule 2, item 15, page 59 (line 26), omit "the period", substitute "the year".

(17) Schedule 2, item 15, page 59 (line 31), omit "a period", substitute "a calendar year".

(18) Schedule 2, item 15, page 59 (line 32), omit "that period", substitute "that year".

_____

SHEET 4078

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

46G Independent evaluation

(1) The Minister must cause an independent evaluation to be conducted of the operation of the amendments made to this Act by Schedule 2 to the Universities Accord (Opening the Doors of Opportunity) Act 2026.

(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the evaluation must consider the impact of the amendments on the following:

(a) autonomy;

(b) transparency;

(c) regional impacts;

(d) visa processing;

(e) sustainability;

(f) student choice;

(g) administrative burdens.

Timing of evaluation

(3) The persons conducting the evaluation must commence the evaluation within two years of the commencement of this section.

Consultation requirement

(4) The persons conducting the evaluation must undertake appropriate consultation

Minister to be given report of review

(5) The persons conducting the evaluation must give the Minister a written report of the evaluation within six months of commencing the evaluation.

Tabling

(6) 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.

Government response to recommendations

(7) If the report sets out one or more recommendations to the Commonwealth Government:

(a) the Minister must cause a statement setting out the Commonwealth Government's response to each of the recommendations to be prepared; and

(b) within 30 days of tabling the report of the review in a House of the Parliament, the Minister must table a copy of the statement in each House of the Parliament.

_____

SHEET 4079

(1) Schedule 1, item 16, page 30 (after line 27), after subsection 33-39A(4), insert:

(4A) The *ATEC may amend a determination under subsection (4) to specify a higher whole number of Commonwealth supported places in relation to a specified *transitioning Table A provider and a specified year if *verified student data shows an excess in the *number of Commonwealth supported places provided by the provider during the year was caused by unanticipated demand, changed enrolment patterns, improved retention or progression, data correction or circumstances beyond the provider's control.

(4B) Subsection (4A) limits the application of subsection 33(3) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 in relation to a determination under subsection (4).

(4C) A *transitioning Table A provider may, in writing, request the *ATEC to amend a determination under subsection (4) in accordance with subsection (4A).

(4D) If a provider makes a request under subsection (4C), the *ATEC must consider the request and decide:

(a) to accept the request; or

(b) refuse the request.

(4E) If the *ATEC refuses a request under paragraph (4D)(b), the ATEC must give the provider written reasons for the refusal.

(2) Schedule 1, page 33 (after line17), after item 26, insert:

26A Section 206-1 (after table item 1ABA)

Insert:

_____

SHEET 4080

(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 9 (line 31), before "The *ATEC", insert "(1)".

(2) Schedule 1, item 2, page 10 (after line 2), after paragraph 30-50(a), insert:

(aa) the criteria, reasons, relative weightings, data, methodology, material assumptions or constraints proposed to be used by the ATEC in determining allocations under subsection 30-15(1) or (1A) for a year; and

(ab) the criteria, reasons, relative weightings, data, methodology, material assumptions or constraints used by the ATEC in determining each allocation made under subsection 30-15(1) or (1A) for a year; and

(3) Schedule 1, item 2, page 10 (after line 5), at the end of section 30-50, add:

(2) The *ATEC must redact the following information from the website:

(a) *personal information;

(b) information that is commercial-in-confidence.

(3) However, if the *ATEC redacts information under subsection (2), the ATEC must ensure that a meaningful summary is available on the website.

_____

SHEET 4081

(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 9 (line 27), at the end of subsection 30-45(1), add:

; (d) the provider's mission;

(e) the provider's financial sustainability;

(f) the provider's continuing-student capacity;

(g) each Remoteness Area categorised under the *ABS Remoteness Structure from which the provider administers or delivers units of study;

(h) the quality and outcomes of the provider's services;

(i) student demand in relation to the provider;

(j) the total *equity component for the provider for the year;

(k) the provider's contribution to supporting *eligible equity students and other under-represented students to access, participate in and complete *courses of study;

(l) the provider's contribution to Australia's skills needs;

(m) alternative local provision (if any);

(n) overall system diversity and sustainability.

_____

SHEET 4083

(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 8 (after line 26), at the end of section 30-25, add:

Publication of determinations and statement of reasons

(6) The *ATEC must publish each determination made under subsection (2) and (4) on the ATEC's website as soon as practicable after it is made.

(7) A determination published under subsection (6) must be accompanied by a written statement of reasons, including the following information:

(a) an explanation of the purpose and operation of the determination;

(b) the power under which the determination was made;

(c) the factors taken into account by the *ATEC in making the determination, including any relevant statutory criteria;

(d) whether the determination is reviewable and the avenues for review (if any);

(e) whether the determination was made by a delegate of the *ATEC;

(f) any other information the *ATEC considers relevant.

(2) Schedule 1, item 2, page 12 (line 10), before "The Minister", insert "(1)".

(3) Schedule 1, item 2, page 12 (after line 14), at the end of section 30-75, add:

(2) An allocation published under subsection (1) must be accompanied by a written statement of reasons, including the following information:

(a) an explanation of the purpose and operation of the allocation;

(b) the power under which the allocation was made;

(c) the factors taken into account by the Minister in making the allocation, including any relevant statutory criteria;

(d) whether the allocation is reviewable and the avenues for review (if any);

(e) whether the allocation was made by a delegate of the Minister;

(f) any other information the Minister considers relevant.

(4) Schedule 1, item 16, page 30 (after line 29), at the end of section 33-39A, add:

Publication of determinations and statement of reasons

(6) The *ATEC must publish each determination made under subsection (4) on the ATEC's website as soon as practicable after it is made.

(7) A determination published under subsection (6) must be accompanied by a written statement of reasons, including the following information:

(a) an explanation of the purpose and operation of the determination;

(b) the power under which the determination was made;

(c) the factors taken into account by the *ATEC in making the determination, including any relevant statutory criteria;

(d) whether the determination is reviewable and the avenues for review (if any);

(e) whether the determination was made by a delegate of the *ATEC;

(f) any other information the *ATEC considers relevant.

(5) Schedule 1, page 33 (after line 20), after item 27, insert:

27A At the end of section 238-5

Add:

(3) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(b), the Minister must not delegate their powers under subsections 30-55(1) and 30-65(1) to an APS employee other than an SES Employee or acting SES employee.

_____

SHEET 4084

(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 5 (lines 21 to 25), omit subsection 30-5(9), substitute:

Explanatory statement

(9) If an instrument made under subsection (1) specifies a different *total allocation pool determination for a specified year than for the previous year, the explanatory statement (within the meaning of the Legislation Act 2003) for the instrument must include a description of:

(a) the basis for the different total allocation pool determination; and

(b) in plain English, the anticipated impact of the different total allocation pool determination on Commonwealth supported places.

(2) Schedule 2, item 15, page 57 (lines 15 to 19), omit subsection 46B(5), substitute:

Explanatory statement

(5) If an instrument made under subsection (1) specifies a different international allocation pool determination for a specified period than for the previous period, the explanatory statement (within the meaning of the Legislation Act 2003) for the instrument must include a description of:

(a) the basis for the different international allocation pool determination; and

(b) in plain English, the anticipated impact of the different international allocation pool determination on the number of international student places.

_____

SHEET 4085

(1) Schedule 1, item 59, page 47 (line 13), omit "in writing", substitute "by legislative instrument".

(2) Schedule 1, item 59, page 47 (lines 16 and 17), omit subsection 39-65(3).

_____

SHEET 4099

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 1), omit "Sections 1 to 3", substitute "Sections 1 to 4".

(2) Page 2 (after line 11), after clause 3, insert:

4 Review of Job-ready Graduates Package and student contribution settings

(1) The Minister must cause a review to be conducted into the operation of student contribution amount requirements in the Higher Education Support Act 2003 and the amendments made to that Act by Schedules 1 and 2 of the Higher Education Support Amendment (Job-Ready Graduates and Supporting Regional and Remote Students) Act 2020.

Content of review

(2) Without limiting the matters in subsection (1), the review must consider the following:

(a) the adequacy, equity and simplicity of the Job-ready Graduates Package funding and the student contribution settings and effects on student choice and participation;

(b) the effect of the Job-ready Graduates Package and student contribution settings on student choice and participation in higher education;

(c) alternative schemes for student contributions.

Consultation with higher education providers

(3) The persons who conduct the review must consult with higher education providers (within the meaning of the Higher Education Support Act 2003).

Advice from the Australian Tertiary Education Commission

(4) For the purposes of subsection (1), the persons conducting the review must obtain advice from the Australian Tertiary Education Commission by 30 June 2027.

(5) The persons conducting the review must provide the advice to the Minister as soon as practicable after it is received.

(6) The Minister must cause a copy of the advice to be published on the Department's website.

(7) The Minister must cause a statement setting out the Commonwealth Government's response to the advice to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting daysof that House after Minister receives the advice.

Timing of review

(8) The review must commence as soon as practicable after the end of the period of 6 monthsstarting on the day this section commences.

Minister to be given report of review

(9) The persons conducting the review must give the Minister a written report of the review before the end of the period of 12 months starting on the day the review commences.

Tabling

(10) The Minister must table a copy of the report in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is given to the Minister.

This is a good bill, but it could have been better. We've seen a number of amendments to try to improve it. My amendments reflect the evidence tendered by experts and stakeholders to the Senate committee inquiry. The amendment on sheet 4064 removes entirely the powers the government is seeking to give the minister in this bill that I think are complete overreach. A common and fundamental concern expressed widely in evidence to the Senate committee is that the bill as drafted bestows inordinate power on the minister of the day, including to override the decision-making of the recently established Australian Tertiary Education Commission, ATEC, which was recently designed to operate independently and at arm's length from the executive. Government amendments in the House of Representatives go some way to addressing these concerns but do not resolve them completely. Further reform is required here specifically to remove ministerial powers to set course-level caps for international students, cap demand driven places for Indigenous students and set provider-specific funding conditions. The dangers of failing to curb excessive ministerial power in current and future governments for the future of our universities are clear, and the Senate should step in to prevent them.

Amendments on sheet 4066 seek to put limits on ministers' directions to ATEC and make them disallowable, preserving the independence of this body as it was legislated, and I think that, as a Senate, some things that we should be mindful of when every piece of legislation comes before this place are ensuring that there is a check on the executive and that we are not giving away our power as a Senate.

Amendment sheet 4068 seeks to make allocations disallowable instruments and removes the ability to cap allocations for Indigenous students, including in postgraduate courses. If we are serious about equity cohorts then we should be encouraging more First Nations students to undertake postgraduate study, not allowing the number of supported students to be capped. Again, if the government wants to make changes, they should be disallowable by this Senate.

Amendments on sheet 4069 seek to prevent the total allocation pool from decreasing year on year. This whole bill is all about managed growth, but we need to bake that into the legislation. As the 2050 Alliance told the committee, while the aim is to give effect to the new managed-growth funding system, the bill doesn't actually legislate sustainability or growth. It sets the rules for maximum allocations to institutions but does not specify minimum allocations. We need to set that floor to ensure our universities can grow into the future, not slip backwards.

Amendment sheet 4070 seeks to establish a minimum core student load. Again, this helps legislate to stop our universities going backwards and protects places. Amendments on sheet 4072 seek to legislate a minimum allocation for medical courses. We are currently in the absurd situation of importing over half of our new doctors in this country, often from countries that desperately need those doctors. We should be training those students here in Australia. I think this feeds directly into the debate we're having in this country about migration, and yet I don't hear people talking about it enough. Why are we not training enough doctors in this country? It seems to me that it comes down to cost and governments not wanting to actually bear the cost—'cost' in their mind—of training doctors. But we know that that is an investment in our communities. And so they'd rather just bring them in from overseas, from countries that also need doctors. I think this does need to change.

The amendment on sheet 4073 seeks to change the low-socioeconomic student enrolment timeframes, addressing a major concern raised by the ANU and the University of Canberra and by universities more broadly, like Western Sydney University. Despite pockets of deep disadvantage in the nation's capital, no students are deemed to come from low-socioeconomic families, because of how the socioeconomic indexes currently work. This is clearly laughable, and there was an admission during the inquiry that this is basically just because of a lack of data, a lack of information. That does not cut it in 2026. Further work is needed on this point, but moving the point at which the low-SES definition applies to students from the time they enrol in the unit to the time they enrol with the institution will help in the interim and is something I urge my Senate colleagues to support.

Amendments on sheet 4077 seek to have the international allocation pool apply for a calendar year, to align with established international student recruitment processes.

Amendment sheet 4078 seeks to implement an additional an independent evaluation of international student place allocations, as moved by the member for Curtin, Kate Chaney, in the other place. International education is the ACT's top export industry and a huge contributor to our national economy as well. At a minimum, I think it is entirely reasonable to review the allocations and to make sure this vital part of our system is working as intended with the changes proposed in this bill.

Amendments on sheet 4083 seek to require the publication of allocation determinations with a statement of reasons and to curb the delegation of ministerial powers. These are sensible amendments that promote transparency and ensure appropriately senior decision-makers are exercising power.

Amendments on sheet 4084 seek to make international allocation pool determinations disallowable instruments, preserving parliamentary oversight over this key component of our higher education system. Again, as a Senate, why do we keep handing the executive power into the future? We should be retaining the right to disallow, and, where appropriate, we should actually be forcing the government of the day, when they want to make big changes, to bring legislation through this place.

Amendments on sheet 4085 seek to ensure that conditions on needs based funding grants are determined by legislative instrument rather than the whim of the minister.

Amendments on sheet 4099 seek to require a review of the failed job-ready graduates scheme and student contribution settings. The JRG is saddling students with eye-watering amounts of debt, with undergrad students finishing with a $50,000-plus HECS debt. This debt is taking students decades to pay off and leading them to delay key life milestones, like buying a house or starting a family. It's clearly a failed system, something that the government have recognised—recognised before they even won government—but seem to be in no hurry to actually fix it, and that's having a huge impact on students.

I thank the government for bringing forward this bill. Again, I think it could be strengthened. My amendments seek to reflect that and to better support universities at a time when many of them feel like they're collateral damage, in terms of both a lack of investment in R&D in this country and a lack of investment in research in universities. Then, there's a lot of talk about, and a clamping down on, international students, which the universities have had to rely on to cross-subsidise things like research in this country. So this is a welcome bill, but there's a very long way to go to better invest in universities, better invest in higher education and better invest in research in this country, rather than just talking about it.

Question negatived.

by leave—I indicate the Greens' support for Senator Pocock's amendments on sheet 4099.

by leave—In lieu of calling for divisions, I indicate the opposition's position on the amendments. The coalition support sheets 4064, 4076, 4080, 4083 and 4085. We oppose all the others.

I'd just like to say that I supported all of Senator Pocock's amendments. Unfortunately, my amendment isn't here and ready, which is really unfortunate, but I just want to say a few words for a couple of minutes, because I imagine there's a lot of kids out there to whom we're still saying, 'Dream a little cheaper.' I just want to remind those kids out there what happened a few years ago when the Morrison government brought in the job-ready graduates program, making arts degrees more expensive. Remember those kids? Remember them? I thought that move was appalling, and so did many others in this chamber. Telling our kids they had to dream a little cheaper—well, I tell you what: fair go!

The Labor Party said, when they were in opposition, that they would get rid of the job-ready graduates scheme. As a matter of fact, they took that to the election last time. It's just another failure, on the government, when it comes to our young kids and giving them an education that will serve their purposes for the rest of their lives. Well, the government are halfway through their second term and they still haven't fixed this. That would tell me that they have no intention of doing so.

The government commissioned the universities accord to have a look at the scheme—in 2023, for you kids out there. The interim report was very, very clear that the job-ready graduate scheme needed to be redesigned before it caused long-term damage. Those were their words.

Three years later, we have a bill in front of us today which doesn't mention a damn word about the job-ready graduates scheme, for you kids out there. And you know what's even worse? I've got the Greens over here saying they're there for you kids—well and truly saying they're behind you on this—and yet they've just done a deal with this government to get this legislation through. But they couldn't have the courage to make sure, before they did this deal, that this was brought back—this money for you. And there's no mention from the Greens about the job-ready graduates scheme, like I said. And here's what Senator Faruqi said to you guys in 2024:

Labor should have dumped Morrison's Job-Ready Graduates scheme the second they came to power.

And she said:

Students starting university next year shouldn't have to cop these ridiculous fees.

Yet here we are today. The Greens have come through to do a university accord, and yet they couldn't stand their ground a little bit longer and say: 'We're not doing this until you go back to your word'—to what was promised to you kids out there. That's where we're at today in this Senate chamber. So if you young kids out there think the Greens are doing you a favour while you're at university, then have a good look and think again, because this was their perfect opportunity to do something and do a deal for this, finally, once and for all. But oh no. So I just say this to you kids: you just keep dreaming a little cheaper—just keep doing that—because a deal could have been done for you today, and it has not been.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.