Universities Accord (Opening the Doors of Opportunity) Bill 2026

Ms SPENDER (Wentworth) (10:12): I rise to speak to the Universities Accord (Opening the Doors of Opportunity) Bill 2026. I acknowledge that managed growth was a recommendation of the Universities Accord, but I am cautious about measures in this bill not because there isn't a problem to solve but because it creates a centralised model and places unprecedented responsibilities with the minister and the Australian Tertiary Education Commission.

I support the amendments proposed by the member for Curtin, formed by the universities themselves. These amendments would moderate the powers given to ATEC and the minister, striking, I believe, a better balance between stewardship and central control. I note that it is on the basis of these amendments being adopted that the sector has broadly given qualified support for this bill.

But, once again, it's very disappointing that this House is being asked to speak to and likely vote on this bill before we've had a chance to review the outcomes of the Senate inquiry. Australia's higher education sector is a world leader. Nine of our universities rank in the world's top 100.

Each year, more than 200,000 international students choose to study here—many more apply than we take—making it our largest export that we don't dig out of the ground. Nearly 400,000 domestic students also start a degree each year. This sector has given us solar-power breakthroughs, world-class quantum research and unicorns like Atlassian.

But I believe it is not on the right track, and many are concerned about its licence. At some universities, international students now outnumber domestic students two to one. Job-ready Graduates, a failed policy, means many students pay more than they did a decade ago for certain degrees.

From 2027, students in the highest pay band will pay $56,000 for a degree, and it will take many more of them more than a decade to pay it off. What are they getting for that money? Many class sizes are growing, teaching is increasingly casualised, student satisfaction is falling, employers are telling us their graduates aren't work ready and firms like the big four major law firms are cutting graduate intakes as AI takes over junior roles.

It is no wonder that students and parents are asking, 'Is university really worth it?' On top of this, governance failures and a poor record on student safety and inclusion in recent years have further eroded public trust. The Universities Accord sets out to address the sector's sustainability. It set a target of having 80 per cent of working-age Australians with a tertiary qualification by 2050, 55 per cent of those with a university degree.

That means doubling the capacity from 860,000 university places today to 1.5 million by 2050. The accord's answer was managed growth—central coordination to stop universities scrambling for enrolments in a race to the bottom. To be fair to the universities, some of this scramble isn't their fault; it's a consequence of incentives.

Job-ready Graduates rewards exactly the wrong behaviour. Arts, commerce and law are less capital intensive and relatively easy to scale. As a result of this failed policy, they also happen to attract the highest student fees.

For years, the government has asked for more of universities while funding them less per student, pushing them to lean on international fees to make up the difference. Most people in the sector accept that something needs to change. But the question, really, for this bill right now is: does it set us up for the changes that this sector needs to make?

There are three main things in this bill: it changes how universities are funded, from a capped grant to a system based on total student numbers, with the minister able to set or lift the total allocation pool; it gives the minister the power to cap international student numbers; and it legislates needs based funding for low-income, First Nations and regional students.

The old cap system let universities manage their own intake, make early offers and absorb surprise demand without second-guessing the funding consequences. Yes, it let arts and commerce degrees overexpand, but it also gave universities room to move and room to innovate. This bill removes that room.

Andrew Norton put it this way: Policies introducing both greater bureaucratic control and enrolment growth seem to be at least partially contradictory. He expects total enrolments will still grow, just not as much as they could under a more flexible system. This model asks the minister to forecast course-by-course demand six months out, locking in allocations every June.

Norton warns that this will lead to a rush of revisions over the Christmas holidays as we adjust for realised demand. Handing the minister power over the total allocation pool, with ATEC deciding how it's split between the universities, risks student choice too. If Jobs-ready Graduates taught us anything, it's that students don't easily switch preferences just because of a signal from government.

Our universities aren't viewed as perfect substitutes, and nor should they be. I understand that we don't want overflowing classes in metropolitan areas at the expense of the regions, but we do want universities competing on quality, not resting on guaranteed allocation. This is probably my greatest concern about the bill—in this direction.

I want to see greater innovation in the university sector, I want to see greater competition between the universities to provide outcomes for students through the education that sets them up and I want to see the universities compete on that. I think that is more important now than ever, particularly with the development of AI and how that is going to influence the workforce.

This innovation in the university sector is more important than ever. I am concerned about elements of this bill that take away some of the incentive to innovate and the incentive to differentiate, which I think should be part of the overall strategy for the universities. I think there are other ways that the government could be thinking about this, including addressing issues such as the breadth of courses or the breadth of research that every single university needs to provide.

I don't know that that is necessarily appropriate. Greater specialisation in our universities could be a significant opportunity for our university sector to seek excellence in particular areas, rather than having to have broader responsibilities across a breadth of areas. That is the concern I have in terms of where this government is going.

I understand the rationale, but the question, really, is: are we going to drive a university sector that competes to be the best in the world for its students and for research, using some of this piece? The second piece is about international students. Again, this bill gives the minister the power to set the international-student allocation pool, with ATEC deciding how it is divided.

I believe we need a more evidence based approach to international students across the board. It's not just applicable to the university sector; it also applies very much to TAFE and other sectors. The issue I have is that the government has failed to put forward a comprehensive migration strategy.

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

Finally, it comes to needs based funding, which is a part of the bill that I support. The accord was clear. Lifting attainment means making universities genuinely accessible to everyone.

The bill legislates needs based funding for regional, First Nations and low SES students. That is welcome, and I support that without reservation. But more is needed.

The accord also flagged that student income support has been eroded by the cost of living faster than almost any other safety net. I understand the budget pressures this government is under. I simply ask that this one stays on the agenda as unfinished business alongside the overdue overhaul of the Job-Ready Graduates scheme as well.

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

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

We should be doing everything we can to deepen those connections between universities and other parts of our economy. I will join the chorus of critics arguing that this system needs reform, but this bill points towards a model that is heavily centralised, potentially anti-competitive and, in some places, self-contradictory. It leaves issues on the table, including the failed Job-Ready Graduates scheme, and I don't see enough here to convince me that the long list of problems that we are all aware of in the university sector will be fixed through this model.

I urge the government to consider the member for Curtin's amendments to this bill, principally seeking to increase oversight of ministerial decisions, given the unprecedented powers, and preserve the autonomy of universities and higher education providers to do what they think is going to make the best difference to their students.