Universities Accord (Opening the Doors of Opportunity) Bill 2026

Senator O'SULLIVAN (Western Australia—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (10:06): As I was saying, this bill penalises providers who exceed their allocated number of Commonwealth supported places beyond a small buffer. That creates a number of adverse consequences and even perverse incentives. It means universities are incentivised to turn students away so they do not risk going over their cap.

It also means that taxpayers pay more to educate the same number of students. The evidence was that this bill could result in taxpayers paying $540.8 million more to educate the same number of students. As drafted, it means universities can actually be penalised if they lift their retention rate.

That is perverse. It incentivises the universities not to improve. It should change, and the coalition will move amendments in this space.

The fourth issue that I want to address here in the time I have remaining is that the coalition is really against this ministerial overreach. We have belled the cat on this issue. We pointed out that, under a little-known section of the bill called section 36-65, the minister would have the power to impose any condition on any university at any time in relation to any matter whatsoever.

The university would then be compelled by law to comply. This power was non-reviewable, non-disallowable, did not require consultation, could be used retrospectively and was entirely unilateral. As initially drafted, it covered any issue whatsoever.

The government has tinkered around the edges with this in the House to slightly narrow the scope, but the central problem remains. It is overreach and, frankly, it should just go. The fifth issue in this bill is the question of quality and transparency.

In this respect, the bill has missed an opportunity. It is a chance to emphasise quality—to put it at the heart of what drives our higher education system and steers the ATEC. But the bill just doesn't really address this issue.

Quality should start with the overarching objective that guides our national tertiary education system. Right now, that objective, introduced by this government, mentions social development and environmental sustainability. What it does not mention are teaching, learning, research and scholarship, let alone innovation, productivity alignment with the needs of business and industry, student experience, Australian values, efficiency and the reduction of regulatory burden.

These things shouldn't be controversial, and so that's why we'll add them. It's a sensible improvement that is in our national interest. There are other parts of the bill which could also be explored in depth, but, in the interest of time, I'll just mention two more.

In the last sitting fortnight, we saw antisemitism once again take centre stage in this parliament and across the nation. We saw the royal commission into antisemitism close without calling the protest organisers, the key leaders in the arts and the university sector or any other government ministers. We know how bad antisemitism has become in this country.

We've seen it. We've seen it taken to extremes, and it looks like 15 people murdered on Bondi Beach. The bill was an opportunity to set a clear national benchmark on antisemitism across every Australian campus.

The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism—that's what we should see. How can you fight antisemitism if you can't even agree on what it is? The IHRA definition is the same benchmark that the Commonwealth government, the state and territory governments and the royal commission itself use.

It should apply on campuses as well. In effect, we ask the government to vote with their own policy. The final issue is about private providers.

On this side of the chamber, we support independent education. We support competitive neutrality, and we will move amendments to put independent providers on the same footing as universities when it comes to consulting about international students, and we will move amendments to list providers who have met all the requirements, as listed in table B universities.

That should be a no-brainer.