Universities Accord (Opening the Doors of Opportunity) Bill 2026
Senator O'SULLIVAN (Western Australia—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (10:52): Colleagues and Chair, what I propose to do is speak to all my amendments and then I'll move them all one by one at the end. That means we can save bouncing backwards and forwards from the chamber. I'll start firstly with opposition amendment (1) on sheet 4027.
I move the amendment: (1) Schedule 1, item 59, page 41 (after line 24), after subparagraph (1)(b)(ii), insert: (iia) immediately before the person enrolled in the *eligible equity course, the person's usual place of residence was in a *high priority area; This is an amendment that backs in regional students. It says that, in the primary legislation, if you're a kid from the bush, you should be eligible for support.
We know that regional students often face greater challenges, and we want more of them to be able to go to uni and succeed if that's what they want to do. That's why we in government set up measures like the tertiary access payment, because we know that that sort of help can be a game changer for kids from the regions. So we are saying to the government: put it in the primary legislation.
Let me be clear. Regional students could be listed as recipients of support under section 39-25(1)(b)(iii). But why not put those kids in the primary legislation in the same way that other groups are listed in section 39-25?
It's about showing your support for the regions. That's who we're supporting with this amendment. For those in this place who don't support the amendment, it will be for you to explain why you did not support regional kids.
Later on, I will move an amendment on sheet 4029. This amendment is about the minister's extraordinary overreach in this bill. The coalition belled the cat on this issue, in a range of areas, when the bill was introduced, but one of the most egregious examples 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. This is in section 36-65 of the Higher Education Support Act, or HESA. Fair enough.
You're a university. You agree to a condition; you must abide by it. We pointed out that, for some reason, the minister was changing that.
The new sections 36 -65 introduced by this bill says, among other things, that the minister may in writing determine conditions that a specified higher education provider must comply with for the purposes of the division. What does that mean? On the drafting that was introduced, it means that, at any time, the minister could impose a condition on a university, and the university would be required by law to comply with it.
They would not agree to it. The minister just decides, and the uni must comply. The minister is not at all required to consult.
The minister is not even required to publish the condition. And the condition must be retrospective. It is unfettered in its scope.
As we specifically pointed out, it can deal with industrial relations matters with an extraordinary degree of power. It is not subject to disallowance in this parliament, and it is not subject to merits review. The government changed this in the House, but they changed it in a very narrow way that was all about their own sectional interests, because the changes they made in the House specifically and deliberately removed from the minister the power to make conditions in relation to industrial relations conditions.
You can imagine why that happened—how the NTEU dropped their bundle at the prospect of a future minister having control over their industrial conditions, how they rang the minister's office and told them to fix it. You can imagine the flurry of activity that occurred. Let me be very clear here: the coalition finished talking on this bill around 12.45 pm on 2 July in the other place.
This was the first time that the issues with the power were pointed out. The next day of sitting was 11 August, and the government amendments in the House were ready to go before the very next sitting day. We know this because, helpfully, the amendments in the other place had a time stamp.
The government amendments were finalised on 10 August 2026 at 3.13 and four seconds, to be precise. It's good to see that the government is responsible for the sectional interests of its funders, but the amendment in this provision in the other place did not go far enough. Like us, many in the crossbenches and the sector at large say that these powers should not be centralised in the hands of the minister, so section 36-65 should go.
In dealing with sheet 4032 amendments, which I'll move later as well, this is a very straightforward, sensible amendment. This is about competitive neutrality. It's about treating providers who provide the same products in the same way.
The bill establishes a legislative framework for managing international students. And, as we've said, it sets out how those international student places are allocated to every provider in the system. Under this bill, only table-A and table-B universities are entitled to be consulted about their allocations.
The mind boggles. When you're talking about independent providers who are not table-A or table-B universities, you're saying to them that they are not entitled to be consulted about their own financial future—their own livelihood. This is silly.
It's unfair. It needs to go. This is a commonsense amendment that restores some basic fairness.
Then I'll go to sheet 4033, which I'll also move later on in this debate. This amendment goes to one of the core issues that we think is missing in this legislation, and that's a focus on quality. Quality should be the watchword, but it's simply not found at all in this bill.
It should be, and it starts with the National Tertiary Education Objective. It's worth revisiting what the current version does, because it will be an iron rod that guides this new regulator. What does the objective say?
This legislation says that the National Tertiary Education Objective is an objective for tertiary education in Australia, firstly to promote a strong, equitable and resilient democracy and secondly to drive national economic and social development and environmental sustainability. Then, if that wasn't clear enough, the legislation goes on: When performing functions and exercising powers, the ATEC and the ATEC Commissioners must have regard to the National Tertiary Education Objective … This is an explicit requirement in law.
It guarantees that, in circumstances where they would otherwise be irrelevant, the ATEC must be thinking about social development, whatever that means, and environmental sustainability. And that's important, because every administrative lawyer will tell you: when a body like the ATEC makes a decision, it must have regard to relevant considerations and must not have regard to irrelevant considerations.
Under the law, if a matter is relevant, you must take into account. If it's not relevant, you must not take it into account. So, absent the requirement in law, ATEC would be required to take social development and sustainability into account where they are relevant, but would be required to not take them into account where they are irrelevant.
Putting it in legislation changes that. It says that, to be a valid decision, the ATEC must take those things into account regardless. Under the National Tertiary Education Objective right now the ATEC is required that deeply political but otherwise irrelevant considerations—like social development and environmental sustainability—must infect every decision that ATEC makes.
You're opening yourself up to every green lawfare activist who wants to challenge a decision about a provider in the courts because it doesn't adequately deal with the climate change or the latest progressive social trend. That in itself is bad enough, but worse than that is the objective misses the obvious. It fails to set the things that are and should be relevant to decisions about tertiary education in this country—things like teaching and learning, research, scholarship, productivity, positive student experiences, competition, innovation across the sector, Australian values, efficiency, value for money both for the taxpayer and for the student, and the reduction of regulatory burdens.
Those are the things that a regulator should be taking into account when making decisions about our tertiary sector. Those are things you'd expect and hope to see. It's not just me saying this.
It's not just the Liberal Party saying this. It's even bodies like the NTU—no great ally of centre-right politics. It's no excuse to say that it was a recommendation of the universities accord—that does not bind the government.
It is for governments to consider a recommendation and to weigh up the justification powers provided, the pros and cons, and the implications. Deciding to write into the legislation is an act of policy decision by the government. Once it's in your legislation, you own it.
The National Tertiary Education Objective as drafted is not fit to proceed. Amending it should be a necessary but not sufficient condition for legislating anything like an ATEC. This amendment changes it.
It's simple, it's straightforward and, I would like to think, it's uncontroversial. It says that the objective of tertiary education in Australia is exactly what you'd expect it to be—teaching, learning, research, scholarship, productivity, positive student experiences, competition, innovation, efficiency, value for money, and support for Australian values. If the government does not support it, they'll be sending a very clear message they will be prioritising misplaced pride over substance, and they'll be voting against teaching, against learning, against research and against support for Australian values.
Let them explain that. Let them give excuses for why they wanted to vote against teaching, against learning, against research and against Australian values in our tertiary sector, and let it be on their heads. We have a number of other amendments which I'll also speak to.
I will later come to sheet 4037. This sheet goes to a matter that should not be controversial. Antisemitism is not just about Jews; it's about all Australians.
Antisemitism is a national security issue—more than 30 of our most senior national security, defence and intelligence leaders said so. Universities have been told now by both sides of politics that they need to clean up their acts and prevent the antisemitism that has taken root on their campuses. But instead of doing something serious to prevent and respond to antisemitism, they debated the definition of the word.
This is absurd. These changes end the ridiculous situation where conduct that is antisemitic at one campus on one side of Sydney is acceptable at another campus on the other side of Sydney. They establish in law a single national definition of antisemitism for higher education in Australia.
It is the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism—the definition that, as the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion itself said, has been adopted by the Commonwealth and state governments. It is the definition that was adopted by the royal commission itself, it is a definition that the Prime Minister himself expressly says he accepts, and it's a definition that explicitly allows criticism of Israel in the same way that we'd criticise every other country.
So we're asking the government to please vote for its own policy. The amendments on this sheet explicitly require universities to prevent, combat and respond to antisemitism. They ensure that taxpayers aren't funding research to promote, enable or amplify antisemitism.
They make sure that the shameful displays that we saw in the encampments never, ever happen again and that we don't have the academics taking children to encampments to call for intifada. We know what intifada looks like in this country: it looks like 15 people being murdered at Bondi Beach. So, to the government, we say this: support these amendments.
We are asking you to vote simply for your own policy. We're asking you to set it down in law to send universities the clearest message that our parliament expects them to rid their campuses of the Jew hate that they have allowed to fester. Doing so unequivocally is in the interests of all Australians.
Later on, I'll come to and move amendments on sheet 4096. These are sensible and straightforward amendments that list two university colleagues as table B universities: the University of Theology and Alphacrucis University College. They are both reputable, highly effective and respected institutions that have met all the thresholds required to be listed as table B providers.
We are asking the government and all those in this parliament to recognise these wonderful institutions and list them in legislation. In doing that, can I take a moment to recognise, as is appropriate, that both of these institutions deserve to be recognised in legislation and that that wouldn't happen without the support of the government. I thank the government very much indeed for their constructive approach.
For full transparency, I note that I've studied at Alphacrucis myself—before it was a university, mind you—many years ago. It is a fine institution, and I'm pleased that this amendment is being proposed here today. I look forward to these two very fine institutions being recognised in law.
In the time I've got left, I'll deal with a few more. We've got amendments on sheet 4106. These are amendments that say one simple thing.
They say that regional means regional—it is the regional funding guarantee. They ensure that funding for regional campuses goes to regional campuses. We support funding for regional campuses.
It is a simple fact that regional delivery costs more. The cohorts are smaller. There are greater difficulties in recruiting staff.
There is often a requirement, sometimes set down in state or territory laws, to maintain facilities across multiple campuses or sustain a breadth of course offerings beyond what is economically sustainable. The regional component of needs based funding is intended to address exactly that. I think I spoke about this when I gave my speech in the second reading debate.
I made clear that there are two major flaws in the regional funding. First, the definition of a high-priority area was not confined to regional, remote and very remote Australia. It would have allowed the minister to specify any area he wanted as a high-priority area.
That would be the inner west of Sydney or the inner north of Melbourne. It undermines the intent of the funding. Second, the bill allows regional funding to go to a university if it has a course that is 'administered in the regions'.
Make no mistake: this is a real concern of the regional providers. They have identified the risk that every large metro university will set up a regional hub with a laptop and a local administrator to 'administer' their courses regardless of where those courses are being delivered or where they're delivered from. The amendment closes the loophole, and that means a win for the regions, a win for the taxpayer and a win for the country.
I will commend those to the Senate when we move them. The other amendment that I'll be addressing today is the amendment on sheet 4107. This amendment corrects what appears to be either a drafting error or an arbitrary distinction that prevents postgraduate courses of study from being eligible for needs based funding.
It preserves some of the flexibility that saw extraordinary success for the Job-ready Graduates program in postgraduate cohorts. There are very good reasons why the minister has included Job-ready Graduates in five successive portfolio budget statements. The Job-ready Graduates scheme drastically reduced the amount paid by teachers, nurses and others in their field of study.
At the commencement of the Job-ready Graduates scheme in 2021, the maximum annual student contribution for education and nursing was $3,950, compared with the $6,804 rate that applied previously. This was a reduction of approximately 42 per cent. In other words, since Labor came to power, every single teacher who has graduated from a higher education institution in a Commonwealth supported place has been a beneficiary of Job-ready Graduates.
It is the same with the nurses and the STEM graduates. They all paid much, much less. In any balanced discussion, these benefits, along with others in the nursing, STEM and other fields, would also feature.
In the inquiry into this bill, the committee received a significant contribution from the Council of Australian Postgraduate Associations, CAPA. CAPA pointed out that one of the features of Job-ready Graduates was to allow universities greater flexibility to move Commonwealth supported places between levels of study. CAPA linked that flexibility to an increase in subsidised postgraduate opportunities, allowing institutions to respond to demand and students to undertake study that might otherwise have been available only at full fees.
CAPA's evidence highlights that Commonwealth supported postgraduate course load increased by 8,422, or 17.2 per cent, between 2020 and 2024. Health represented about 72 per cent of the total expansion in postgraduate CSP load. That is an extraordinary increase in the number of postgraduate qualified personnel entering the workforce in fields which increasingly require postgraduate qualifications, and it particularly benefits regional Australia, where universities needed and used the flexibility to offer postgraduate courses.
What this amendment does is preserve some of that flexibility by ensuring that needs based funding is available for postgraduate courses as much as it is for undergraduate courses and levelling the playing field. The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Scarr ): Senator O'Sullivan, do you have further contributions you wish to make? Senator O'SULLIVAN: I only have one more paragraph, actually.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: That may be the case, but the standing orders provide that you can only have two consecutive 10-minute slots. If another senator wishes to make a very—oh, sorry. The minister is seeking the call.