Universities Accord (Opening the Doors of Opportunity) Bill 2026

Mr REBELLO (McPherson) (12:35): I rise to speak to the Universities Accord (Opening the Doors of Opportunity) Bill 2026. I'll just say at the outset that the coalition hasn't finalised its position on the bill. We will refer this to a Senate committee for inquiry and report because, ultimately, we believe in evidence, and the evidence that comes through that committee will be vital for us in determining our final position.

This bill takes a lot of focus because it makes significant structural changes to the higher education system. I associate myself with some of the previous comments. Universities in this country matter.

They matter not only in terms of the country we want to be but in terms of the calibre of our next generation. It's something that we can't discuss lightly. It's something that is very important to who we are as a country, and it will be very crucial to the country that we end up becoming over the years to come.

I think of the opportunities I received from the universities that I attended and the incredible support that they provided me. They were very much a foundation to my career and to the life that I set up. I had the opportunity to go to the Australian National University, here in the ACT, but I also had the opportunity to participate in international education overseas.

I studied at universities in both China and the Netherlands. So I was able to get a more holistic and international insight into tertiary education, which gave me a view of what we do well but also of the areas that we need to do better in. What we are seeing at the moment with our universities in Australia is very concerning.

We're seeing under Labor that universities have become measurably worse. There are a few different categories that I think of when I make that statement. I look at research funding, I look at the culture that we've seen on university campuses and how that's changed in particular over the last couple of years and I look at overregulation.

I represent the southern Gold Coast, and people on the southern Gold Coast are so fortunate to have two fantastic universities. We have Southern Cross University with the Coolangatta campus and we have Bond University, which is based at Varsity Lakes. They're both universities that I have had significant dealings with, not only during my time as the member for McPherson but also prior to that.

They both provide education to the next generation of Australians that is not only practical but also relevant to where we live, not only on the Gold Coast but within the context of our broader Indo-Pacific region. When I speak to the vice-chancellors of those universities, when I speak to the teaching staff and when I speak to the students, I hear, unfortunately, this view that it is becoming too difficult to run universities.

It's becoming too difficult to compete with all of the regulations that government is imposing on them. That seems to be the common thread that I get when I ask for feedback amongst my universities. We're seeing the consequences of these challenges.

We've seen domestic enrolments falling. I note that in 2022 there were 1.103 million domestic students at university, whereas, according to the most recent data, we've seen numbers fall since Labor came to office. In fact, we're at the lowest number since 2019.

Now, I respect that there is a role for us to educate international students. We not only get a financial benefit from doing so; we also get a long-term soft-power benefit. I've had the opportunity to speak to people who have come to this country and studied here and then gone overseas and become very senior in their fields, often in politics.

They have a very different view of us as a country because of their experiences here. There is no doubt that that is important. But, if you ask me, when we're seeing domestic enrolments falling, Australian universities at their core should be focused on ensuring that we educate the next generation of Australians.

On the current statistics, on the current numbers, we're not seeing that to be the case, at least to the extent that we would like to see it. The second point I was making, in relation to overregulation—and this is the point that my universities on the Gold Coast have raised with me consistently—is that, according to the Department of Education, since 2022 the ratio of students to teaching staff has increased, and get this: the numbers of administrative, technical and operating staff are growing twice as fast as for teaching and research staff.

That's the feedback that I also get. And the feedback more specifically from the universities has been that they're having to bring on extra staff to deal with the incredible obligations put on them by government. From an ideological perspective, I've always been of the view that when government gets involved—whether it's in business, whether it's in the private sector or whether it's in universities—it doesn't always end well.

There's sometimes a role for them to be involved, and there certainly is when it comes to universities. When universities are subject to TEQSA, to ATEC, to the new gender based violence commissioner and to the Ombudsman, they're not telling me that they're against what these people are asking them to do, that they're against adhering to certain standards. But they are saying that government should perhaps look at the consequences and the costs of implementation and the fact that universities, especially smaller universities, are having to bear those costs and having to adjust their teaching staff in favour of administrative staff and regulatory staff.

At the end of the day, there is one cohort that misses out when universities have to do that, and that is the students, and the students should always be the focus and at the core of what we do when it comes to the education space. I made reference to the changing culture on campus at universities. Over the last few years, what we've seen in Australia is very unrecognisable to me, as somebody who went through our tertiary education system not that long ago, quite frankly—about eight years ago.

We see spectacle after spectacle, week after week, of encampments on university campuses in this country preaching hate not only against the country, which is bad enough in and of itself, but also against specific minority groups and particularly against the Jewish population in this country. I think it has been quite concerning to see that happening at places that should be beacons of thought and opportunities for debate.

We've seen this across the country, and it's been reflected in data that's been acquired through the Racism@Uni survey, which found extraordinary levels of this sort of abuse, particularly against Jewish students and other groups. When we have situations where our education system is handbraked by regulation or is handbraked by the decisions of this place, it results in consequences for our education rankings and our standards not only in Australia but around the world.

We saw that when more than half of Australia's universities dropped in world rankings in June this year. Just to put some numbers to what I was saying about the regulation—I mentioned TEQSA and a few of the different regulatory bodies. TEQSA itself, I understand, lodged a submission recently which said that there are now at least 15 different regulators and oversight bodies that universities report to.

As a member of the Australian public, as somebody who is probably going to be the beneficiary of the intellect of students at universities now at some point in the future, I do not want our educators or our universities to find themselves tied up dealing with these 15 different regulators and oversight bodies as well as the more than 300 pieces of legislation and regulation that they're required to adhere to and comply with.

So I say to this place—again, reserving the coalition's right to make a decision on this bill—that these are the sorts of highly pressing issues that need to be addressed, and I don't get the impression that those opposite are actually addressing these issues. This is the direct feedback that I've received, as the federal member for McPherson, from the universities that I represent.

I also recently acquired the role of co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of International Students group. I had the opportunity only last week to meet with university representatives from around the country, and this was also a great part of the feedback we received. They feel very much handbraked by the regulation that's imposed by this place.

As far as I can see in this legislation, in this universities accord bill, there's very little effort going to address those concerns and those issues, and that's something that we need to have a real conversation about. I've been listening to some of the contributions from those opposite, and I think there's a mismatch between what the bill is actually about and what members opposite are saying the bill will do.

Labor seems to be pretending that the bill is about funding student places and about increasing university funding for specific groups, such as Indigenous Australians, people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds and people from rural and regional areas. But it's not actually right. You'll see it's not accurate when you read the content of the bill.

You don't need this bill to do any of those things. What the bill actually does is it centralises a significant amount of power over universities and higher education providers in the hands of the relevant minister. It moves our higher education system towards a centrally managed model.

This means, practically, that the ministers and/or the minister and future ministers as well would gain extensive powers over domestic Commonwealth supported places, international student allocations, demand driven higher education course places, conditions imposed on providers, needs based funding, and priorities and directions given to ATEC. There's a good thing about this.

It means that the powers could be used by a future government to address some serious policy problems or concerns. But, on the flip side, we have some concerns about competition, the autonomy of institutions, efficiency, parliamentary oversight and ministerial discretion. That's the essence of this bill.

So the four main concerns that I have centre, firstly, around competition. The bill is not based on competition, deregulation or institutional autonomy. It's based on central allocation and ministerial control.

As such, the bill treats competition between universities as a problem. I don't associate myself with that view, because, at the end of the day, competition will benefit consumers. When it comes to competition between universities, that competition benefits the students themselves because it incentivises different universities, whether in my electorate or elsewhere, to compete on quality, on student experience, on career outcomes, on academic reputation and on course offerings.

There are a few parts of this bill that raise concerns, and I hope that a Senate inquiry will enable those concerns to be fleshed out more thoroughly. But, at the end of the day, it is important we're having this conversation. Australians and most people in this place—not everybody, and that's fine too; not everyone needs to go through university, and, in fact, we have a great deal of need outside the tertiary education system at the moment as well—will remember and recognise the influence that universities have had on their careers, their lives and the broader lives and experiences of Australians.

It's important we get this right, actually listen to what the sector is telling us and don't just impose what we think the sector wants us to impose. The message that I've received from my constituents and from my universities is very clear: we're making it too difficult for them to do teaching and educate the next generation. And, when the focus is diverted away from that, we have a serious problem.