The Higher Education Support Amendment (End Dirty University Partnerships) Bill 2025 would add new disclosure, divestment and prohibition rules to the Higher Education Support Act 2003. It requires higher education providers that receive Commonwealth grants under Part 22 to publish reports when they enter into—or already hold—partnerships or investments with entities defined as ‘prohibited,’ and it forbids new partnerships and certain appointments tied to those entities.
The measure defines prohibited entities to include corporations in the fossil fuel, gambling, tobacco and weapons industries and allows the minister to prescribe additional entities by legislative instrument (subject to parliamentary approval). Practically, universities face a 6‑month deadline to wind down existing relationships after the law or an entity’s newly defined status takes effect, and the Commonwealth can negotiate compensation for quantifiable losses.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill obliges grant‑receiving higher education providers to prepare and publish written disclosure reports for new and existing partnerships or investments with 'prohibited entities'. It also bans entering into new partnerships or investments with prohibited entities and blocks appointing governors who hold investments in, or board roles at, prohibited entities.
Who It Affects
Applies to higher education providers that receive grants under Part 22 of the Higher Education Support Act 2003—this typically covers Australian universities and other grant‑funded providers. It also touches governing‑board candidates, current donors, research partners and ministerial officeholders who make prescribing decisions.
Why It Matters
The bill rewrites funding and governance risk for institutions that accept industry money from specific sectors, creates a new public reporting regime, and gives the minister a route to expand the prohibited list—shifting some financial risk from universities to the Commonwealth while raising questions about academic freedom, contractual exposure and enforcement.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill inserts two new disclosure duties into the Higher Education Support Act 2003. One requires providers who receive Part 22 grants to publish a written report on their website within 30 days after entering into any partnership or making any investment in a prohibited entity.
The other requires providers to catalogue and publish any partnerships or investments that were in force on commencement within 90 days. Both reports must name the provider and the prohibited entity, describe the relationship, and state its monetary value.
Beyond transparency, the bill creates a substantive prohibition: providers receiving Part 22 grants may not form new partnerships or make investments with prohibited entities, and they may not appoint to their governing bodies anyone who holds an investment in, or sits on the board of, a prohibited entity. The minister may add entities to the prohibited list by legislative instrument, but any such instrument only takes effect after each House of Parliament approves it.For existing relationships, the bill forces action.
Providers must end partnerships or divest investments within six months either from the Act's commencement (for pre‑existing arrangements) or from the date an entity first becomes defined as prohibited. If divestment produces a quantifiable loss, the Commonwealth may—but only if it and the provider agree—pay reasonable compensation.
The bill also supplies statutory definitions (for example, fossil fuel, gambling, tobacco, weapons) and defines 'partnership' and 'investment' broadly to capture scholarships, joint ventures and research programs.Taken together, the package replaces confidential negotiation and case‑by‑case reputational management with statutory duties, fixed deadlines and a minister‑driven list of banned counterparties. That combination will force providers to audit funding sources, rework research agreements and revisit governance checks on prospective council members and donors.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill applies only to higher education providers that receive grants under Part 22 of the Higher Education Support Act 2003.
New partnerships or investments with a 'prohibited entity' must be published by the provider within 30 days; existing partnerships/investments in force on commencement must be disclosed within 90 days.
The bill prohibits grant‑receiving providers from entering new partnerships or investments with prohibited entities and from appointing to governing bodies anyone who has an investment in, or is a board member of, a prohibited entity.
Providers must end partnerships or divest investments within six months after commencement or six months after an entity becomes 'prohibited'; the Commonwealth may pay compensation for quantifiable loss only by agreement.
'Prohibited entity' is defined to include fossil fuel, gambling, tobacco and weapons industry business entities, and the minister can add entities by legislative instrument that requires approval by both Houses of Parliament.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Disclosure for new partnerships and investments
Section 1968 requires providers receiving Part 22 grants to prepare a written disclosure report whenever they enter a partnership with or make an investment in a prohibited entity after the section commences. The report must name the parties, describe the relationship and state monetary value, and the provider must publish it on its website within 30 days. This creates an immediate public record—moving deals that might previously have been confidential into the open and enabling external scrutiny of funding and collaboration arrangements.
Retroactive disclosure of in‑force relationships at commencement
Section 1969 forces providers to inventory and disclose all partnerships and investments that were in force on the section's commencement date, again naming parties, describing the arrangement and quantifying value. Providers have 90 days from commencement to publish these reports. That longer window recognizes the administrative burden of a retrospective audit but produces a deadline that institutions must meet or risk public disclosure gaps.
Ban on new partnerships, governance links and ministerial prescription
Section 3675 prohibits grant‑receiving providers from entering into partnerships or investments with prohibited entities and bars appointing to governing bodies any person who holds investments in, or is a board member of, a prohibited entity. It empowers the minister to prescribe additional business entities as prohibited by legislative instrument; such instruments only take effect once each House of Parliament approves them. The requirement for parliamentary approval checks executive discretion but still centralises the power to expand the banned list in the minister's office.
Divestment timelines and compensation mechanism
Section 3680 obliges providers to take the steps necessary to end partnerships or divest investments within six months—either from commencement (for pre‑existing ties) or from the date an entity becomes prohibited. If a provider suffers a quantifiable loss from complying, the Commonwealth may pay reasonable compensation, but only to the extent the Commonwealth and the provider agree on that compensation. The clause leaves open how losses are quantified and places the onus on negotiated settlement rather than an automatic statutory payout.
Definitions that set the scope (fossil fuel, gambling, tobacco, weapons, partnership, investment)
Schedule 1 inserts detailed definitions that determine the law's reach. 'Fossil fuel', 'gambling', 'tobacco' and 'weapons' industry business entities are broadly defined to include corporations engaged in core commercial activities and their related bodies corporate. 'Partnership' covers a wide range of agreements where the provider receives monetary benefit, explicitly listing scholarships, joint ventures and research programs; 'investment' covers any application of money to gain a return. Those broad definitions ensure the rules capture common funding and collaboration mechanisms, but they also create scope for contested interpretations during implementation.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Education across all five countries.
Explore Education in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Students and student representative bodies seeking ethical alignment—greater transparency and bans reduce the likelihood that scholarships, research funding or campus programs are supported by firms in fossil fuel, gambling, tobacco or weapons sectors.
- Public interest and community groups pursuing divestment—statutory disclosures and divestment deadlines give advocates new data and leverage to press for change and hold institutions accountable.
- Competing universities and providers that avoid such industry ties—institutions already free of these relationships will gain reputational advantage and clearer marketing claims because disclosures make comparisons easier.
Who Bears the Cost
- Higher education providers and university finance offices—must audit portfolios, publish disclosures, unwind contracts, renegotiate research agreements and possibly write down assets within a six‑month window, creating administrative and financial burdens.
- Research collaborators, scholarship programs and industry partners—may lose funding streams and joint ventures, disrupting long‑running research projects and scholar support that relied on industry money.
- University governing bodies and search committees—face narrower candidate pools because the bill bars appointing people with investments in or board roles at prohibited entities, complicating recruitment and donor engagement.
- The Commonwealth—may face fiscal exposure from negotiated compensation for quantifiable losses and will take on administrative work to process disclosures and manage the ministerial prescription power.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill forces a trade‑off between public values (protecting students and the community from ties to specified harmful industries) and institutional autonomy and financial stability (universities' ability to secure funding, run long‑term research collaborations and appoint governing expertise). It addresses legitimate reputational and ethical concerns but does so by imposing tight timelines, broad definitions and ministerial discretion—creating a dilemma between decisive public action and the practical, contractual realities of university finance and research.
The bill leaves several implementation questions open. 'Harmful to the Australian community' and 'harmful to the interests of students' are the statutory predicates the minister may use to prescribe additional prohibited entities, but those phrases are unqualified. That ambiguity creates legal risk: providers will have to decide whether to act before or after a ministerial instrument takes effect, and courts or review processes may be the venue for disputes over whether an entity meets the threshold.
Divestment in six months is operationally blunt. Many partnerships are governed by multi‑year contracts, intellectual property arrangements, research ethics approvals, or overseas legal regimes that do not permit simple unwinding.
The compensation clause contemplates payment for quantifiable loss but conditions it on agreement between the Commonwealth and the provider; that leaves providers exposed to uncompensated losses and invites bargaining over valuation methodology. The bill also lacks explicit enforcement penalties or a supervisory compliance regime, so practical enforcement may rely on public shaming, administrative oversight and the threat of funding withdrawal rather than a calibrated sanction schedule.
Finally, the ministerial tool to expand the prohibited list concentrates politically sensitive power in a single office while requiring parliamentary approval for instruments to take effect. That combination speeds identification of candidate entities but risks politicisation of the list and uncertain timing—both of which will affect providers' risk calculations and international partnerships.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.