Universities Accord (Opening the Doors of Opportunity) Bill 2026
Dr SCAMPS (Mackellar) (11:05): I rise to speak on the Universities Accord (Opening the Doors of Opportunity) Bill 2026. Australia's universities are among our most important national institutions. They educate the next generation of teachers, nurses, engineers, scientists and business leaders.
They drive research and innovation, contribute billions of dollars to our economy and enrich the cultural and civic life of communities right across the country. But it's also true that our higher education system faces significant challenges. Many young Australians are carrying HELP debts far larger than previous generations did while also trying to save for a deposit on a house in an increasingly expensive housing market and trying to establish themselves financially.
For too many graduates, debt accumulated through study has become another pressure in an already difficult cost-of-living environment. At the same time, university staff are under considerable strain. Academic and professional staff have faced years of uncertainty, workload pressures and funding instability.
Many institutions continue to grapple with workforce challenges that affect both the quality of education and the wellbeing of those who deliver it. Across the sector, we have also seen controversies involving governance, campus culture and the management of public resources. These issues have rightly attracted scrutiny, because universities occupy a unique position in Australian society.
They receive significant public support and play a crucial role in shaping our nation's future. In this context, the Australian Universities Accord sought to examine Australia's higher education system and create a long-term plan for reform. The accord's final report established a road map for higher education to ensure Australia has the skills, workforce and research capacity necessary to meet the challenges of coming decades.
A strong university sector produces the knowledge, skills and research that underpin economic growth. It creates opportunities for people to develop their talents and fulfil their potential. It strengthens our democracy by encouraging inquiry, debate and critical thinking.
The benefits extend beyond students themselves. Communities that host universities gain jobs, investment, cultural vitality and greater economic activity. The accord also sets ambitious targets for educational attainment.
It recommended lifting the tertiary attainment rate of working-age Australians from around 60 per cent today to at least 80 per cent by 2050. It also proposed increasing the proportion of Australians aged 25 to 30 with a university qualification from approximately 45 per cent to 55 per cent over the same period. Achieving those objectives will require substantial growth in the higher education system.
The number of Commonwealth supported university students will need to more than double, rising from around 860,000 today to about 1.8 million by 2050. But the accord recognised that growth alone is not enough. It identified the persistent inequality that exists within our education system and the reality that students from disadvantaged backgrounds often require additional support to succeed.
Students from low-socioeconomic backgrounds, regional and remote communities and First Nations communities continue to be underrepresented in higher education. Addressing those barriers was rightly identified as a central objective of reform. The bill before the House forms part of the government's response to some of the recommendations contained within the accord.
I welcome the objective of expanding opportunity, particularly for students from disadvantaged backgrounds and those living in regional and rural Australia. Ensuring that more Australians can access higher education is a goal we should all support. However, I hold concerns that some elements of this bill may be unnecessarily restrictive to student choice, reduce institutional flexibility and create a system that becomes overly dependent on future ministerial discretion.
This legislation will be highly consequential for both universities and students. In broad terms, it does three things. First, it reshapes the way Commonwealth supported places are funded through the introduction of a managed growth funding model.
Second, it establishes a new needs based funding framework. Third, it creates a framework for the allocation of international student places. Under the current system, Commonwealth funding is largely distributed through maximum basic grant arrangements, with student demand playing a significant role in determining growth over time.
The bill proposes a different approach. Rather than growth occurring primarily in response to student demand, the Australian Tertiary Education Commission, ATEC, would be responsible for allocating funded student places to institutions. The government's argument is that this allows growth to be directed towards areas of national priority while providing universities with greater certainty about future investment.
There is merit in that objective. Transparency around the size and growth of the higher education system is important. Universities need a degree of certainty so they can make long-term decisions about staffing, infrastructure, course offerings and student support services.
I support these intentions. However, I'm concerned that the legislation contains no requirement for future governments to increase the number of Commonwealth supported places over time. While the current government has made clear that it intends for the overall system to grow, this bill does not bind future ministers to that course.
A future government could theoretically retain the framework while choosing not to expand opportunity. For that reason, I support the amendments being moved by the member for Curtin, particularly those requiring the minister to publish a statement of reasons for these important decisions, including the total number of Commonwealth supported places. I also have concerns regarding the hard cap framework established by this bill.
Currently, universities operate with a degree of flexibility and are able to enrol students above their allocated Commonwealth supported places when demand significantly exceeds expectations. This flexibility has allowed universities to respond to changing circumstances and accommodate student demand when additional places are needed. Under the model proposed in this legislation, that flexibility will be reduced.
Universities that enrol more than five per cent above their allocation or 750 additional places, whichever is lower, will face financial penalties through the loss of student contribution revenue for those enrolments. My concern is that this could ultimately constrain student choice. While there are mechanisms through which universities can seek additional places and pathways through which ATEC can make recommendations to the minister, I'm not yet convinced these safeguards are sufficient.
As these reforms are implemented, the government must ensure that student access and choice remain at the centre of the system. There is also a broader issue that this bill does not adequately address. One of the major drivers of distortions within higher education over recent years has been the Job-ready Graduates Package.
The Job-ready Graduates reforms were built on the assumption that changing the price of degrees would significantly change student behaviour. Certain degrees became cheaper in the hope that students would move into areas of workforce shortage, while others became substantially more expensive. That assumption has not been borne out.
Students did not suddenly abandon their interests, talents and career aspirations because university fees changed, nor did large numbers switch disciplines simply because one degree costs less than another. Instead, student preferences remain relatively stable while debts increase dramatically for many students. Today, some graduates leave university carrying debts many times larger than those of their peers studying different disciplines.
For many students, a three-year degree can result in debt exceeding $50,000 before they have even secured full-time employment. As Universities Australia Chief Executive Officer Luke Sheehy has observed, Job-ready Graduates reduced public investment in university teaching by around $1 billion a year while increasing the share paid by students. The government is now spending $16 billion reducing HELP balances while leaving in place a system that continues to inflate them.
That is not fiscal discipline. It's deferred reform. I share the view that the job-ready graduates scheme has failed to achieve its central objective and it remains one of the most significant unresolved issues in higher education policy.
Another major component of this bill relates to international students. The legislation establishes a framework through which a future government may determine an overall national cap on international student commencements, with ATEC responsible for distributing places across institutions. I support the principle of managed growth.
International education is enormously valuable to Australia, but it is entirely reasonable that governments ensure expansion occurs in an orderly and sustainable manner. I also support the role of an independent commission in helping allocate those places. However, I do have concerns about the breadth of ministerial powers to determine the overall number of international student places.
Whenever such significant powers are concentrated in the hands of a minister, there is a risk that decisions become political rather than evidence-based. The challenge is to strike the right balance between accountability, independence and transparency. I believe further safeguards can strengthen the framework and reduce that risk.
The final major reform contained within this bill is the introduction of a needs based funding model. Under this approach, universities will receive additional funding linked to enrolling and supporting students from groups that have historically faced barriers to higher education, including First Nations students, students from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds and students from regional and remote communities.
The legislation also requires those funds to be directed towards student support and regional delivery purposes. This is a reform I strongly support. Access to higher education is not equal across Australia.
A student's opportunities are often shaped by where they grow up, the resources available in their school, their family's financial circumstances and whether they can relocate to pursue study. Recognising those realities is about ensuring that talent is not overlooked simply because opportunity is unevenly distributed. If we are serious about expanding participation and meeting the ambitious targets set out in the accord, then additional support for underrepresented students is essential.
In conclusion, I support the aims and many of the reforms contained within this bill. Planned and purposeful growth is preferable to the unmanaged drift identified in the accord process, needs based funding is a long overdue recognition that equity requires more than simply opening the front door and a stronger role for independent oversight in the allocation of international student places represents a positive step forward.
However, I remain concerned about the hard enrolment caps proposed by the legislation and the scope of ministerial powers regarding international student numbers. I will therefore support the crossbench amendments designed to address these concerns. I also strongly urge the government to remove the failed job-ready graduates scheme which continues to burden students with higher debts without delivering the workforce outcomes it promised.
Despite these reservations, I acknowledge the genuine ambition behind this legislation. Expanding opportunity, broadening participation and preparing Australia for the skills challenges of the future are important objectives, and they deserve our support. I thank the minister for his leadership on this vitally important work, and I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.