Universities Accord (Opening the Doors of Opportunity) Bill 2026

Slade Brockman

According to the statement of reasons for the government amendments on sheet HG147, the amendment (3) 'will change the destination of money appropriated, which will increase a burden in relation to an appropriation'. This reflects the advice to the government from the parliamentary counsel, but the Clerk's view is that this does not accord with precedents of the Senate. The third paragraph of section 53 of the Constitution provides that:

The Senate may not amend any proposed law so as to increase any proposed charge or burden on the people.

This has relevantly been taken to mean that the Senate may not amend a bill to increase the proposed expenditure under a standing appropriation. However, the amendment in question does not have that effect.

The advice of the Clerk, which is set out on the amendment sheet, is that:

The amendment broadens the purposes for which higher education providers may spend the equity component of their needs-based funding grants. It does not change the provisions determining the amount of those grants or the total proposed expenditure under the standing appropriation. The fact that the grants may be used to support a larger class of persons does not itself increase the amount payable by the Commonwealth.

This is consistent with the approach the Senate took in relation to the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Bill 2016 and the Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill 2024. I have considered the views of the parliamentary counsel and the Clerk and consider that the Clerk's view is consistent with the precedents of the Senate. I therefore rule that the amendment should be framed as an amendment, not a request.

Jess Walsh

I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to this bill.

Mehreen Faruqi

I move:

(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 9 (line 27), at the end of subsection 30-45(1), add:

; (d) student demand.

The Greens have worked really hard with Minister Clare's office on this bill and have made this bill much better than it was with the 13 amendments that have been agreed to by the government, which we have pushed. The bill is now focused on student needs and student choice much more than it was before, and it allows much less intervention now by the minister than it did before—and that is a good thing. The amendments that the government has agreed to have been amendments that unis and students and their unions have really wanted, and that is the reason we have worked so hard to make them happen. We have an agreement now with the government.

This particular amendment goes to student demand. As the bill originally was, nothing required the minister or ATEC to consider student demand when making allocation decisions. For a bill that is supposedly all about growth, for ATEC to not even turn its mind to or consider student demand is quite absurd. You cannot force students to attend institutions chosen by the minister or ATEC. They simply won't go. This amendment ensures that ATEC must consider the demand from students when making allocations. Without this amendment, student choice would have been sidelined in the managed growth system, with the government attempting to shift students around in order to fill funding gaps that their own policies have created. Higher education should be staff- and student-led, not led by the minister or ATEC-led, and I'm pleased that the government will support the Greens amendment.

Jess Walsh

I thank Senator Faruqi for this amendment and confirm the government's support.

Slade Brockman

The question is the Australian Greens amendment (1) on sheet 4046 be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Mehreen Faruqi

I move:

(1) Schedule 1, item 59, page 41 (line 23), omit "at the time the person enrols in the unit,".

This amendment is about the timing of low socioeconomic status—or SES—applications. Again, for a bill that the Albanese government has marketed as being all about equity, an understanding of how disadvantage operates and impacts on student lives was sorely missing from this bill. Universities, staff and academics all criticised the profound inequity in the bill, especially when calculating the applicability of needs based funding and a student's low SES at the time the person enrolled in the unit. This means that the low-SES student living in a regional area who moves to the inner city for university will apparently no longer be disadvantaged.

This perverse position should really never have made it into the bill and into parliament. This Greens amendment will remove the words 'at the time the person enrols in the unit,' that precedes 'the person is a low SES student'. The government has, appropriately, agreed to support this amendment to ensure that low-SES regional students who move for university are not excluded from much-needed support. This will make the bill more sensible and more equitable and will remove any ambiguity around who is a low-SES student and who isn't just because of where they live and where they might have moved from.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I move Greens amendments on sheet 4055 together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 6 (line 18) to page 7 (line 28), omit subsection 30-20, substitute:

30-20 Requirements for allocations to Table A providers

Number of places that must be allocated

(1) A *Table A provider's *domestic student profile for a year must be equal to:

(a) if at any time during the year, a mission based compact under Division 2 of Part 3 of the *ATEC Act was in force between the *ATEC and the provider—the sum of:

(i) the *core student load for the provider for the year; and

(ii) the *additional growth allocation (if any) for the provider for the year; or

(b) otherwise—the core student load for the provider for the year.

Places for particular higher education courses

(2) The allocation must not specify that a number of the Commonwealth supported places in the provider's *domestic student profile are for a particular *higher education course or kind of higher education course.

(2) Schedule 1, item 2, page 8 (lines 27 to 32), section 30-30 to be opposed.

(3) Schedule 1, item 5, page 12 (lines 24 and 25), omit "other than *designated higher education courses (see subsection (2))".

(4) Schedule 1, item 5, page 12 (lines 26 and 27), omit paragraph 33-5(1)(b).

(5) Schedule 1, item 5, page 13 (lines 2 and 3), omit "other than designated higher education courses".

(6) Schedule 1, item 5, page 13 (line 5), omit "other than *designated higher education courses".

(7) Schedule 1, item 5, page 14 (line 13) to page 16 (line 29), omit subsections 33-5(3) to (7), substitute:

(3) If the *number of Commonwealth supported places provided by the provider in *higher education courses during the year exceeds the provider's *domestic student profile for the year, then the amount for those courses is the amount worked out by multiplying:

(a) the provider's *domestic student profile for the year; by

(b) the provider's *average cluster rate for those courses for the year.

(8) Schedule 1, item 6, page 25 (lines 15 and 16), omit "other than *designated higher education courses".

(9) Schedule 1, item 6, page 25 (line 17), omit paragraph 33-15(2)(b).

(10) Schedule 1, item 10, page 26 (lines 1 to 3), to be opposed.

(11) Schedule 1, item 12, page 26 (lines 7 and 8), to be opposed.

(12) Schedule 1, item 31, page 35 (lines 1 and 2), omit the definition of "designated courses profile".

These amendments remove the ability for the minister to set specific courses as designated higher education courses. With this power, the minister would have been able to set the Commonwealth supported place allocations to zero for a specific degree. Ministers change, and any future minister could do that. Frankly, it is not hard to imagine a world under One Nation or the coalition where the minister decides that art degrees are too woke and that no student can study them. No minister should be able to tell students what they can and cannot study. We saw what the coalition government did with Job-ready Graduates. They made art degrees so expensive that students either don't do them or come out with tens of thousands of dollars of debt if they do deign to study them. These Greens amendments remove every reference to designated higher education courses and strip the minister of this power. These amendments, I am happy to report, will be supported by the government.

Matt O'Sullivan

These are amendments which, out of an abundance of caution, we will oppose. It is a finely balanced issue. We oppose these amendments because they go to one of the central budgetary risks in this bill that we identified when it was first introduced. One of the main changes in this legislation is a change to the way domestic places are funded. Currently, unis are given a bucket of money and they decide the types of places. That changes under this bill. Unis are given a number of places, but not all places cost the same. That creates a budgetary risk if providers decide to deliver high-cost places. This designated places regime gives the minister one way to control that risk because ministers can designate the number of places that can be given in particular types of courses, and there might be other reasons to exercise that power in the national interest. Right now, the designated places regime is not in use, but it might be necessary in the future if we're to bring the budget back to balance under this Labor government's mess.

Slade Brockman

The first question is that amendments (1), (3) to (9) and (12) be agreed to.

A division having been called and the bells being rung—

Senator O'Sullivan is seeking leave to cancel the division.

Leave granted.

Matt O'Sullivan

Could we have the coalition's position recorded as opposed to the amendments.

Slade Brockman

That will be recorded.

Question agreed to.

I've still got one question to put. The question remains that, in schedule 1, section 30-30 in item 2 and items 10 and 12 stand as printed.

Question negatived.

Matt O'Sullivan

():  by leave—In lieu of a division, we ask to have our position recorded.

Mehreen Faruqi

I'd now like to move Greens amendment (1) on sheet 4110:

(1) Schedule 1, item 16, page 29 (lines 20 to 29), omit section 33-39, substitute:

33-39 Default deemed allocation

A higher education provider's default deemed allocation for a year is 105% of the provider's *domestic student profile for the year (rounded up to the nearest whole number).

This amendment goes to overenrolment. One of the concerns raised by many universities was the bill's introduction of rigid enrolment caps where universities enrol over their allocation. This cap is problematic both because of the implications of student choice and the number of enrolments and because of its lack of flexibility. Professor Andrew Norton's analysis found that, if this cap were in place in 2025, for instance, it would have permitted only half the overenrolments, at the cost of more than 20,000 places across the system. That would have been 20,000 students potentially cut out of higher education. This amendment expands the overenrolment buffer to 105 per cent of a provider's domestic student profile and allows for flexibility for universities to respond to student demand. I welcome the government's support of this important amendment to protect student choice.

Matt O'Sullivan

The coalition does not support this amendment. It is an improvement on the bill, but it is a weak second best to the alternative we propose, which creates more choice for students, better flexibility for providers and better outcomes for the taxpayers and helps the smaller providers. This is an amendment which does not address the perverse incentive that sees universities punished if they improve their retention rate.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I seek to have our position recorded in lieu of a division.

Mehreen Faruqi

by leave—I move Greens amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 4113:

(1) Schedule 1, item 24, page 33 (line 8), omit "2031", substitute "2030".

(2) Schedule 1, item 59, page 48 (line 24), omit "2031", substitute "2030".

(3) Schedule 1, item 59, page 48 (line 25), omit "review", substitute "evaluation".

These are quite simple amendments. They bring forward the commencement date of the evaluation of the operation of the managed growth funding system for domestic students and the needs based funding part of the bill to before 2030 instead of 2031. This allows for a more timely independent evaluation of the new system. Again, I'm happy to report that the government is supporting these amendments.

Matt O'Sullivan

I'll indicate that we will be supporting amendments on sheets 4113, 4114 and 4115. These are technical amendments which make minor improvements to the bill in relation to the timing of decisions.

Question agreed to.

Long debate text truncated.