Submissions to the Senate inquiry into the Universities Accord (Opening the Doors of Opportunity) Bill closed on 31 July, with 51 published by the Committee at the time of writing.
While most focused on the Bill’s two major domestic reforms, Managed Growth Funding and Needs-based Funding, a significant number also addressed the proposed framework for allocating international student places (TKN 290626).
Across the submissions, recurring concerns included the breadth of ministerial discretion, the independence of the Australian Tertiary Education Commission (ATEC), the absence of a clear timetable for allocation decisions, limited consultation and review rights, and the ability to reduce allocations after recruitment has begun.
Independent Higher Education Australia (IHEA) went even further, recommending the entire Schedule dealing with international student allocations be removed unless substantial amendments are made.
Concerns about ministerial powers and institutional autonomy
One of the most consistent concerns is the extent of the Minister’s power to influence provider-level allocations.
Universities Australia (UA) calls for a consistent principle under which “the Minister sets the policy, while the ATEC applies that policy independently”.
IHEA similarly wants clearer statutory safeguards governing ministerial determinations, while the Regional Universities Network (RUN) argues that allocations should be made by a genuinely independent ATEC without discretionary or potentially politicised ministerial intervention. The 2050 Alliance says giving the Minister power to set caps at individual institutions is contrary to the allocation model established by the Bill.
RUN recommends removing the Minister’s power under section 71(2) of the ATEC Act to direct ATEC in relation to individual provider allocations. UA proposes broader safeguards, including limits on ministerial intervention, a clear annual allocation timetable, better alignment between the domestic and international frameworks, and independent statutory review.
Charles Sturt University also calls for the Minister to be required to seek advice and consult before determining international student numbers. It argues that determinations and variations should be open to parliamentary scrutiny and subject to review or appeal.
The University of Melbourne, Bond University and the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering (ATSE) also object to international allocation pool determinations being exempt from parliamentary disallowance. Bond and ATSE propose that any disallowance operate prospectively so that places, enrolments and visas already relied upon would not be affected.
Professor Richard Blythe, Curtin University’s Pro Vice-Chancellor of Humanities, writing in a personal capacity, agrees that the Bill gives the Minister too much control but differs on the remedy. He argues that parliamentary disallowance could create further political instability. Instead, he proposes that government set the overall pool while ATEC’s independence in distributing places is protected in primary legislation.
Methodology transparency
IHEA wants ATEC to publish the methodology used to allocate international student places, including decision-making criteria and annual performance information. It also calls for provider-neutral allocation methodologies and periodic independent review of the framework.
Independent Tertiary Education Council Australia (ITECA) similarly wants ATEC to publish the factors and weightings it applies so that providers can understand, plan for and respond to decisions, and have confidence that the methodology is being applied consistently.
Emeritus Professor Clive Smallman recommends publishing not only the methodology and assessment criteria, but also the weightings, performance indicators, treatment of new and expanding providers, principles governing reallocations and reasons for individual decisions.
Consultation
Under the Bill, ATEC must consult Table A and Table B providers before making their allocations. Independent higher education providers are not given the same statutory consultation right.
IHEA wants this protection extended to independent providers, arguing that ATEC’s stewardship responsibilities apply across the regulated higher education sector. Smallman frames this as an issue of competitive neutrality, arguing that providers regulated under the same TEQSA and ESOS standards should ordinarily receive equivalent procedural protections where government decisions materially affect their viability.
ITECA also wants ATEC to consult relevant international education peak bodies before the Minister makes or varies an international allocation pool determination.
Timing of allocation pool decisions
UA wants the Minister to determine the international allocation pool by 30 June in the preceding year, providing greater certainty in an environment with long recruitment and planning cycles. IHEA, higher education policy expert Andrew Norton and the Business Council of Australia make the same recommendation.
The University of Melbourne similarly supports a mid-year deadline but wants both the pool determined and provider allocations completed by 1 July. Curtin University calls for clear timing that reflects recruitment and visa-processing lead times, while the University of Queensland proposes an earlier deadline of 1 April.
Interaction with visa settings
Federation University argues that the allocation framework cannot operate effectively without coordination with visa processing. It says a regional provider may receive an allocation that it cannot use because of visa refusals, leaving it to plan on the basis of one government setting that the operation of another effectively prevents it from realising.
Federation points to its own experience: despite receiving a 2026 allocation of 1,800 new overseas student commencements, it forecasts around 500, with visa approval rates in its key markets at approximately one in two.
It recommends requiring the Minister and ATEC to consider visa-approval performance and its consequences for providers operating below their allocation for reasons outside their control.
Variation to allocations
Andrew Norton raises concerns about the scope to reduce both the overall allocation pool and individual provider allocations after an allocation period has begun.
He recommends that any reduction in the national pool should not take it below the number of international students who have already commenced during the relevant period. He also argues that the legislation should specify the grounds on which ATEC may reduce a provider’s allocation, rather than leaving the power open-ended. Possible grounds could include regulatory action against the provider or its courses, or evidence that the provider has no realistic prospect of using its allocation.
The University of Sydney recommends strong restrictions on downward variations, proposing that the international allocation pool should not be reduced during the period to which it applies unless the variation increases the number of places. It also proposes that ATEC be prevented from reducing a provider’s allocation below the number of enrolment confirmations the provider has already issued for that period.
Adelaide University recommends that any determination or variation be made at least six months before the relevant period and that the allocation period be fixed at 12 months.
Independent review
Independent statutory review of the allocation framework is supported by UA, IHEA and RUN. The University of Sydney similarly recommends that international allocations be included in the Bill’s independent evaluation requirements, while Professor Phillip Cenere proposes an evaluation of Part 4A equivalent to those established for Managed Growth Funding and Needs-Based Funding. Smallman recommends that the framework be independently reviewed within three years of commencement.
Submissions may be viewed on the Education and Employment Legislation Committee website. The Committee is due to report by 3 September 2026, with the commencement of spring parliamentary sittings the following week.
Comments 1