Universities Accord (Opening the Doors of Opportunity) Bill 2026

Senator DAVID POCOCK (Australian Capital Territory—Independent ACT Whip) (11:06): I'd like to start by saying that I welcome the Universities Accord (Opening the Doors of Opportunity) Bill 2026 and the reforms it contains to how we fund universities, and I intend to support it. However, the very clear consensus from evidence presented to the Senate committee inquiry is that it needs amendments before it should pass the Senate.

First and foremost, while fixing how we fund universities, the bill does nothing to address student contributions and the crushing debt impacts from Job-Ready Graduates. After four years in power and having railed against Job-ready Graduates in opposition, it should be unbelievable—unfortunately, it isn't—that the Albanese government have failed to act on JRG.

First they kicked it to ATEC. Now ATEC is saying there'll be no advice until next year and no change until 2028 at the earliest. In that time, students will continue to accrue $50,000-plus debts for a humanities degree, a degree that we know is more important than ever in the face of AI.

I'm moving an amendment that would seek to expedite this process. The overwhelming consensus from the Senate inquiry was that the most concerning thing about this bill is the extraordinary powers that it gives the current minister and any future minister to intervene in our universities. While some of these powers have been wound back, they remain excessive.

I believe further amendment is required specifically to remove ministerial power to set course-level caps for international students, cap demand-driven places for Indigenous students and set provider-specific funding conditions. As a Senate, we should be a check on executive power and we should fight tooth and nail not to provide this level of power to any future minister.

These sorts of changes should be subject to scrutiny. They should have to come through this parliament and be judged by elected representatives on behalf of the people that send them to this place. In circumstances where this bill passes unamended, QUT highlighted the potential perils and vulnerability to politicisation of standard university operational decisions.

I'll quote from their submission. It said: The Bill would create an avenue for stakeholders dissatisfied with such decisions to seek Ministerial intervention in operational matters that should remain within established institutional governance processes. It said the existence of these powers: … would encourage stakeholders to seek Ministerial intervention whenever an institutional decision becomes contentious.

Refusing to intervene could then become as politically consequential as intervening. I don't understand why the minister would even want these powers. Can you imagine the lobbying that it opens them up to and the public criticism where they do or don't make a decision that may or may not be ideologically aligned with a certain group?

Not only could a minister ban a specific course for ideological reasons or at the behest of a vested interest; they could also mandate that certain courses be taught. Given what we've seen overseas, it's really not hard to imagine a government banning all sorts of things, such as welcomes to country or pride events on campus, or interfering with what universities teach about climate change, genocide or the Holocaust.

No government should have this sort of power to impose ideologies on our universities. As Doctor Byron succinctly put it, while the government could be worried about a future rogue Senate, the Senate should be worried about a future rogue government. That encapsulates the concerns about handing this sort of extraordinary power to the minister.

Both I and the coalition will move an amendment that would seek to remove these powers. In my second reading amendment, I talk about the need to better define equity. The University of Canberra highlighted the shortcomings with the current definition: … the ACT is largely excluded from the Government's Needs-based Funding model, with no support for Low Socio-Economic Status (Low SES) or regional students.

Proposed methodology of using Low SES does not recognise any disadvantaged University of Canberra students from the ACT. We have not received support funding in 2026 for most of our disadvantaged students and now expect to be underfunded into 2027. The 2021 Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA) are not adequate in identifying disadvantage in the ACT.

Using these tables there are no Low-SES areas in the ACT. This is a product of good urban planning but statistically hides disadvantaged individuals. Canberra has pockets of extreme disadvantage, and this needs to be recognised.

We have to have a system where students who need more support get it and universities who need to provide that support are provided with additional funding to do exactly that. This really rough way of calculating low-SES or regional students just doesn't cut it. We have to do better as a country in terms of collecting data and ensuring that universities like the University of Canberra aren't missing out.

The purpose of this bill is managed growth, but, as experts like Doctor Andrew Norton highlighted, 'the bill does not appropriate any new funding for additional student places'. He said: By contrast, the bill has two new features that will reduce how many student places universities can offer. This clearly stands in contrast to the stated aim of managed growth.

Another of my amendments seeks to set a floor in the total allocation pool. A further concern is around parliamentary oversight. The two determinations that set the size of the whole system, the domestic total allocation pool and the international pool are expressly exempt from disallowance.

Every decision beneath them is declared not to be a legislative instrument, including place allocations, core and growth determinations, and international allocations. We should not be allowing this as a Senate. We should have a say on these decisions of the executive.

They should be up for debate. They should be up for disallowance. I urge fellow senators to ensure that we do not hand these powers to the executive in perpetuity.

One of my amendments seeks to change this and give the parliament, rather than the minister of the day, oversight of these crucial matters—crucial not just for our university sector but for the future of our country. I'd like to thank my team for the huge amount of work that they put into this bill and this inquiry. Based on the evidence provided to the Senate Committee, I requested 23 amendments to this bill, all based on what I'd heard from the university sector and from experts.

Unfortunately, at the time of making these remarks, only five have been circulated, and I note the Greens are yet to circulate any amendments. For a bill this important, I think it speaks to a failure of process. As senators, we need to have the opportunity to move amendments to bills, and that requires access to drafting in a timely way that enables us to discuss with colleagues and to seek support before the bill is in the Senate like this.

I'd like to thank those in the drafting office for the amazing work that they do. We know that you're under the pump. But, as a crossbencher, again I would like to raise with the government, with the President, the lack of drafting resources for the crossbench.

I can't speak of how the major parties experience it, but, as a crossbencher, it is incredibly difficult to get anything drafted in a timely manner, and I don't think that's good enough for our democracy. Elected representatives, regardless of where you're from, who you're here representing or which state or territory you're representing, should have access to drafting, where you can put forward your amendments in good faith, have conversations with colleagues, and then, when it comes down to it, they're either supported or not supported.

Finally, I'd like to thank the committee for all their work and stakeholders for their comprehensive, detailed and constructive submissions on this legislation. Too often the public does not see the genuinely good faith work that happens in this place—the collaboration and the collegiate way that Senate committees can work a lot of the time, obviously not all of the time.

I think we should continue to highlight that as senators. So while I have these concerns, I thank the government for the direction they are heading in, and I commend my amendments to the Senate. I foreshadow my second reading amendments.