Universities Accord (Opening the Doors of Opportunity) Bill 2026
Ms STEGGALL (Warringah) (10:46): I move amendments (1) to (3), as circulated in my name, together: (1) Schedule 1, item 59, page 47 (after line 26), after subsection 39-70(2), insert: (2A) Subsection (2) is subject to subsections (3C) and (3D). (2) Schedule 1, item 59, page 47 (after line 28), after subsection 39-70(3), insert: Spending in accordance with ATEC institutional equity strategy (3A) The *ATEC may, by notifiable instrument, publish a strategy (the ATEC institutional equity strategy) for widening access to higher education for persons in target cohorts.
(3B) For the purposes of subsection (3A), a person is in a target cohort if: (a) the person is any of the following: (i) an *Indigenous person; (ii) a person from a *low socioeconomic background; (iii) a person included in a class of persons specified in the Needs-based Funding Grants Guidelines for the purposes of subparagraph 39-25(1)(b)(iii); (iv) a person included in a class of persons specified in the Needs-based Funding Grants Guidelines for the purposes of this subparagraph; and (b) the person satisfies any requirements specified in the Needs-based Funding Grants Guidelines for the purposes of this paragraph.
(3C) Subject to subsection (3D), a higher education provider may spend an amount of a grant that the provider receives under this Part on activities to implement the ATEC institutional equity strategy (if there is one). (3D) The higher education provider must ensure that any spending undertaken by the provider in accordance with subsection (3C) does not prevent from the provider from spending, on activities covered by subsection (2), an amount of the grant that is equal to or greater than: (a) unless paragraph (b) of this subsection applies—the *total equity component for the provider for the year; or (b) if the Needs-based Funding Grants Guidelines specify, for the purposes of this paragraph, an amount that is less than the total equity component for the provider of the year—that lesser amount.
(3) Schedule 2, item 15, page 56 (after line 33), after subsection 46B(1), insert: (1A) An international allocation pool determination: (a) must not make provision in relation to a particular course; and (b) must not specify, for the purposes of paragraph (1)(b), matters that relate to a particular course. These amendments in relation to the Universities Accord bill are to ensure that we find the right balance.
I support the ambition of the Universities Accord to expand access to higher education and ensure more Australians have the opportunity to attend university, but this bill needs stronger safeguards in two important areas: protecting university autonomy and properly supporting outreach to students who are currently missing out. I acknowledge that, in the amendments the government just introduced, which I supported, there were some measures to start to clarify that question—for example, stopping the minister from using opaque, university-specific grant conditions to control courses or industrial relations and requiring those conditions to be made public.
These are all important in assisting university autonomy, which goes some way towards my amendments. Again I point out that it would have been nice to have the opportunity for more clarity and discussion with the minister in relation to the amendments that I am proposing and the government's amendments, but that was not forthcoming. My first amendment explicitly prevents allocations being imposed at the level of individual courses, fields of education or classes of courses.
Under this bill, the government determines the overall number of international student places and the Australian Tertiary Education Commission allocates places between institutions. Whatever members think of that broader framework, there should be a clear limit on how far government interference can go. Once a university receives its allocation.
It should be for that university to decide how these places are distributed across its courses. Canberra should not be deciding whether a university can enrol more international students in engineering, nursing or business than humanities or any other disciplines. Those are decisions for universities based on student demand, workforce needs, research strengths and the communities they serve.
We have already seen through the Job-ready Graduates scheme the problems that arise when governments try to pick and choose which fields of study students should pursue. We should not create another mechanism that allows a minister or government agency to micromanage academic offerings. My amendment therefore draws a clear line.
Allocations may be made at the institutional level but not at the course level. That is an important protection for university autonomy. The second amendment addresses another fundamental objective of the accord: widening participation in higher education.
If we want more students from disadvantaged backgrounds to attend university, support cannot begin only after they enrol. For many students, the barriers arise much earlier. They may be the first person in their family to consider university.
They may live in a regional or disadvantaged community where higher education feels distant or simply out of reach. They may never receive the information, encouragement or support that allows them to see university as a realistic option. Universities already undertake important outreach work with schools and communities to change that, preparing students to think about university and then take up that option.
My amendment makes clear that a portion of needs based funding can be used for pre-enrolment outreach. That can support sustained partnerships with schools, with mentoring, with aspiration-building programs and with other initiatives that help students understand the opportunities available to them—to actually consider and take them up—because widening participation is not simply about creating more university places and it's not simply looking at the number of enrolments; it's actually about looking at the whole picture.
It's about ensuring that students who have traditionally missed out can see a pathway to university and have a genuine opportunity to take it. These are practical and targeted amendments. They don't undermine the central architecture of this bill, but they strengthen it by protecting universities from unnecessary interference while giving them greater flexibility to reach students who are currently underrepresented in higher education.
A stronger higher education system requires both institutional autonomy and genuine investment in opportunity. I commend these amendments to the House.