Universities Accord (Opening the Doors of Opportunity) Bill 2026

Mr LEESER (Berowra) (10:25): I rise to speak on the government's amendments on sheet HG137, and I acknowledge the minister's, as it were, apology in relation to what's happened, that these amendments have come on a little earlier. I want to say something about the coalition's position on the amendments. We will not support the amendments, as I mentioned earlier, when it's put to a vote.

That's not because we're opposed to it in principle, but because, even though it's been ready to go for some time, it was only introduced last night, and we haven't had time to work through it. We reserve our position on the merits, and we're not prepared just to wave it through. We're not sure these amendments are right.

I'm a little amused about this, because, for everyone in this chamber and for everyone watching, I think these amendments are an admission that the government got it wrong, that it stuffed up and that there are errors and unintended consequences in the legislation that it only introduced into this chamber a few weeks ago. It seems that the government only became aware of these after I pointed them out.

Before we've even completed the second reading stage of the bill, before the bill's been scrutinised by the committee, the minister has announced 17 different amendments into this parliament. The only conclusion to be drawn here is that the bill doesn't do what the minister says it does, so let's unpack what happened here. In the last sitting block, the minister introduced a bill.

He said it was about opening the doors of opportunity, about poor kids getting a go, about regional students getting support. It was all about places and all about money. Then, on the last day of the last sitting week before the winter break on 2 July, I gave the coalition's second reading speech.

I said we hadn't formed a position on the bill one way or the other, but the thrust of my speech was that this is not a bill about money or places. It's a bill about control, not places. One of the most egregious examples of this was the minister's unilateral power to impose conditions on universities.

Right now, the law says that providers must comply with conditions that they agree to. That is section 36-65 of the Higher Education Support Act, or HESA. That's fair enough.

If you're a university and you agree to a condition, you must abide by it. I pointed out that, for some reason, the minister was changing that dynamic. The new section 36-65 introduced by this bill says, among other things: The Minister may, in writing, determine conditions that a specified higher education provider must comply with for the purposes of this Division.

What does that mean? It means that at any time the minister can impose a condition on a university and that that university will be required by law to comply with it. They don't need to agree to it.

The minister just decides and the uni must comply. The minister is not required to consult. The minister is not even required to publish the condition.

The condition can be retrospective, and it is unfettered in its scope. As I specifically pointed out, it can deal with industrial relations matters. It is an extraordinary degree of power.

It is not subject to disallowance in the parliament, and it's not subject to merits review. Item 17 on this sheet changes it. It specifically and deliberately removes from the minister the power to make conditions in relation to industrial relations conditions.

You can only imagine how the NTEU dropped their bundle at the prospect of a future minister having control over their industrial conditions, and no doubt they told the minister to fix it. You can imagine the flurry of activity that followed. Let's be clear here.

I finished talking about this bill around 12.45 pm on 2 July. These amendments were ready to go before the very next sitting day. Helpfully, the government amendments have a time stamp.

They were finalised on 10 August 2026 at 3.13.04 pm. Ten days ago, on Monday of last week, before this parliament had even returned for this sitting block, these amendments were ready to go. If you work the process required to amend the bill back from there, there's a long tail.

You need to identify the problem, as I did on 2 July. You need to give drafting instructions. You need to get the amendments through your internal processes, through cabinet, and at least obtain the agreement of the Prime Minister.

Presumably you need to explain the stuff-up to caucus. This is the fix that I hazard a guess has actually been weeks in the making. No wonder the minister had to tell the Financial Review conference he was open to amendments.

No wonder he had to try and describe this as Hanson-proofing the bill. He's already had his marching orders from the NTEU and needed to try and make a virtue out of necessity. I've got some questions for the minister.

What does item 17 on this sheet do? Why have you introduced it? When did you give drafting instructions?

Did you consult with the NTEU or other unions first? Why didn't you consult across the parliament before circulating it? I want to say something about the process that's being followed, and I'm now talking to members of the parliament more broadly, particularly to the Labor caucus; to university administrators; to the leaders of Universities Australia; to the various university groups; to higher education specialists; and to journalists in this nation's major mastheads.

As I said, the bill doesn't do what the minister says it does. The reason we're voting on these amendments now before the bill has even been considered by a Senate committee is because it's been obvious that the bill does something different. We're not prepared to wave these amendments through on less than 24 hours notice.

We will work through things sensibly. We want the record to show we're not simply prepared to give a blank cheque. As I pointed out, these amendments have been ready to go for 10 days.

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

Let me look at how some of the other provisions on this sheet, other than item 17, operate. The government is now removing and replacing subsection 30-15(1) of its bill. As it was introduced, this provision said that the ATEC may in writing allocate a specified whole number of Commonwealth supported places to a table A provider or another higher education provider.

It's a fundamental provision of this bill. It's about allocation of Commonwealth supported places by the ATEC and how that is done. They are repealing the provision that they introduced a few weeks ago and replacing it.

That sounds significant, so I ask the minister: what exactly is changing here? The new provision says the ATEC must allocate Commonwealth supported places to a table A provider, which, for those who are not familiar, means a public university. It must allocate those places.

It doesn't have a choice. Then there's a new provision, subsection 1A, which says a TEK may allocate places to another higher education provider. My question to the minister is why we are having this change.

Can he—through you, Deputy Speaker—explain why item 3 on the government's amendments sheet why was deemed necessary? What is the unintended consequence that the government is trying to address before this bill even gets to the Senate? What has spooked them?

The point I make is this. These aren't mere technical changes. This is one of the central provisions of the bill that is being changed—the provision of the bill that deals with the allocation of CSPs.

As I said previously, the bill only really deals with four things: allocation of domestic student load, allocation of international student load, ministerial control and needs based funding. The provision you are changing here is one of the key provisions that deals with domestic students, arguably the most important of those four areas. Why the urgent unannounced change?

Is the minister concerned the legislation as introduced would have allowed the ATEC not to give places to the public universities at all? Did the government discover the original bill didn't actually guarantee every table A university an allocation? Was there a legal possibility that ATEC could choose not to allocate places to a particular public university at all?

Could ATEC have allocated a table A university fewer places than its calculated core student load? Could it have allocated none? The government should tell the House whether this amendment creates a statutory entitlement for every table A provider to receive an allocation every year and what is precisely the content of that entitlement.

Is the guarantee simply that the number must be greater than zero, or does the interaction with the core student load provisions mean that every table A provider is guaranteed its statutory core student load? This is the very drafting issue the higher education expert Professor Andrew Norton identified shortly after introduction. If the policy was that domestic student profile would be the core student load plus growth, why did the bill merely say that it must not exceed that amount?

The government is now addressing that issue. So was the original bill wrong? What would have happened if parliament had passed the bill in its original form?

Then there's the other side of the amendment—the non-table-A providers, the private higher education providers. Is there any minimum allocation for non-table-A providers? Which non-table-A providers will be eligible for these places, and what is the process for them to obtain places?

Is there any right to reasons? Is there any transparent competitive process? Is there a review mechanism if ATEC refuses an allocation?

These are the core provisions of this bill. They go to how university places are allocated in this country. For students, it means this.

These rushed amendments go to where and whether you will have the opportunity to study. I point out to those listening this: if within days of introduction it's having to make changes to the fundamental provisions of the bill, what else has the government missed? The SPEAKER: The question is that the amendments moved by the government be agreed to.