Universities Accord (Opening the Doors of Opportunity) Bill 2026; Second Reading

Brown supported the bill, stating it implements recommendations from the Australian Universities Accord to expand access for low-socioeconomic and regional students through a managed-growth funding system. Brown highlighted an additional $3.6 billion investment over the next decade, expected to support 230,000 extra domestic students, and noted that needs-based funding would more than double support for disadvantaged cohorts. Brown confirmed that government amendments would require the Australian Tertiary Education Commission to consider student demand and clarify eligibility criteria.

Faruqi opposed the bill, arguing it fails to address student poverty or reverse fee hikes from the Job-ready Graduates scheme, which she claimed have cost students $2.1 billion. Faruqi criticised the bill for curtailing student choice through caps and granting the minister excessive powers to set course allocations to zero or impose conditions on universities. Faruqi announced she would move amendments to remove these ministerial powers, expand the overenrolment buffer, and ensure needs-based funding covers postgraduate students and is not subject to ministerial reduction to zero.

Smith supported the bill, emphasising that it enshrines needs-based funding to help students from low-socioeconomic backgrounds, First Nations communities, and regional areas succeed. Smith noted that the Senate committee inquiry received broad support for the bill's intent but acknowledged concerns regarding ministerial powers and the definition of low-socioeconomic students. Smith highlighted complementary government measures, including the expansion of Commonwealth prac payments to new disciplines and the establishment of regional university study hubs.

Payman supported the bill but argued it missed critical issues affecting medical students and graduates in fields like computer science who face unemployment despite high achievement. Payman highlighted the disparity in research and development expenditure compared to other nations and the reliance of universities on international student fees. Payman called for better support for graduates to achieve their potential and for a more complex economy that retains skilled workers.

Dowling supported the bill, arguing that it addresses structural barriers to higher education based on geography and family income rather than ability. Dowling highlighted the importance of the managed-growth system for Tasmania, noting that the University of Tasmania supports the reforms to reach students in regional areas like Burnie and Launceston. Dowling emphasised that the additional funding would help retain skills in regional communities and build the workforce needed for future economic productivity.

Pocock indicated he would support the bill but argued it required significant amendments to address excessive ministerial powers and the lack of action on Job-ready Graduates fee hikes. Pocock criticised the bill for exempting key determinations from parliamentary disallowance and for using an outdated definition of low-socioeconomic status that excludes disadvantaged students in the ACT. Pocock announced he would move amendments to remove ministerial powers to set course caps and impose conditions, and to establish a floor for the total allocation pool.

Shoebridge opposed the bill, arguing it fails to address the cost-of-living crisis for students or the impact of the Job-ready Graduates scheme on degree costs. Shoebridge raised urgent concerns about universities entering into partnerships with US-owned AI companies without staff consultation, citing strikes at the University of Sydney and UNSW. Shoebridge argued that the bill opens the door to foreign tech interests undermining academic integrity and staff job security.

Whitten opposed the bill, arguing it hands control of university places to bureaucrats in Canberra and undermines competition and quality. Whitten criticised the needs-based funding model for focusing on identity categories rather than genuine need and merit, and warned that it could lead to universities chasing funding by enrolling underprepared students. Whitten announced that One Nation would oppose the bill and foreshadowed a second reading amendment, while outlining their policy to reduce immigration and prioritise Australian students.

lead

Allman-Payne argued that the bill failed to address fundamental barriers to equity, specifically student poverty and the cost of living. Allman-Payne criticised the retention of the Job-ready Graduates system, which Allman-Payne claimed had cost students an additional $2.1 billion since its introduction. Allman-Payne highlighted the case of James Cook University, where proposed cuts to a veterinary diagnostic laboratory threatened practical training opportunities and regional expertise. Allman-Payne called for increased youth allowance and Austudy payments, the removal of the parental income test for adults, and proper public funding for universities to ensure staff security and educational quality.

McKim argued that the bill represented a missed opportunity to make tertiary education free and erase existing HECS debts. McKim suggested that funding for free education could be sourced through a wealth tax on the top one per cent, corporate tax reforms, and cancelling AUKUS submarine commitments. McKim highlighted that low socioeconomic status student commencements had decreased by nearly 10 per cent between 2020 and 2024, attributing this to the Job-ready Graduates scheme and rising living costs. McKim called for a 25 per cent tax on gas exports to fund genuine equity reforms.

Steele-John described the initial bill as undercooked but acknowledged that amendments from Senator Faruqi had addressed many concerns. Steele-John focused on workforce shortages in the health sector, arguing that students need better financial support to complete practical placements. Steele-John noted that while the Commonwealth prac placement support program had been expanded to include professions like occupational therapy and psychology, it excluded medical students. Steele-John warned that this exclusion disadvantaged students, particularly First Nations students, who struggle to afford training without adequate income support.