Universities Accord (Opening the Doors of Opportunity) Bill 2026

Senator O'SULLIVAN (Western Australia—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (10:41): by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 4025: (1) Schedule 1, item 16, page 28 (lines 19 to 22), omit the definition of over-enrolled places, substitute: over-enrolled places means: (a) the number of places worked out under subsection (3); or (b) if the provider is a *transitioning Table A provider—the number of places worked out under subsection (4); reduced by the adjustment determined under subsection (6).

(2) Schedule 1, item 16, page 29 (after line 19), at the end of section 33-38, add: (6) For the purposes of the definition of over-enrolledplaces, the ATEC must: (a) consider the provider's student retention rate; and (b) inform the provider, in writing, of the adjustment that the ATEC proposes to determine for the provider under this subsection; and (c) invite the provider to make a submission, in writing, to the ATEC in relation to the proposed adjustment within 30 days after the giving of the invitation; and (d) after the earlier of the following: (i) receiving the provider's submission (if any); (ii) the end of the period of 30 days after the giving of the invitation; determine, in writing, an adjustment for the provider for the reference year.

(7) The ATEC must consider any submissions made by the provider in accordance with an invitation given under subsection (6). (8) An adjustment under subsection (6) may be zero. (3) Schedule 1, item 16, page 29 (line 22), omit "lesser of", substitute "greater of".

This sheet addresses the most substantial drawback of this bill. As we've said previously, the overenrolment provisions of this bill penalise providers if they educate more students than they are paid to by the taxpayer. Now, this has three main drawbacks for the taxpayer.

It means that we pay more money to educate the same number of students. It is anti productivity. For the university it means they are not able to respond to student demand and that there is no flexibility to respond to factors beyond the university's control.

For the student it means less choice. It means they are less likely to be able to study at the university of their first preference, and that's because universities are incentivised not to offer more places lest they get slapped with a penalty. And there's a perverse incentive too: as drafted, the legislation allows the situation whereby a university is penalised if it improves its retention rate.

This amendment addresses both of those issues in a way far better than what was proposed by the Greens. Rather than proposing a straight 105 per cent buffer across the board. This gives smaller providers more certainty.

It gives them more headroom, it means that they won't get hit with a penalty unless they hit the proposed 750 student limit and it tilts the balance in favour of the newer, smaller providers, not the mega-universities. The government and Greens have not addressed the perverse incentive, presumably because they think the ATEC will never make a mistake and there will never be unforeseen circumstances like an economic downturn, which history tells us will lead to greater retention.

They are counting on universities never being unfairly slapped with an overenrolment penalty. This is a sensible improvement that is materially better than the alternatives on offer, and I commend them to the Senate.