JavaScript disabled. Please enable JavaScript to use My News, My Clippings, My Comments and user settings.

If you have trouble accessing our login form below, you can go to our login page.

If you have trouble accessing our login form below, you can go to our login page.

Tony Abbott's assault on uni equality


Tony Abbott's hit-first and talk-later approach to university fees and loans threatens to backfire.


The quality of instruction at all universities needs to improve if we are to compete globally.

The quality of instruction at all universities needs to improve if we are to compete globally. Photo: Fiona Morris

Social mobility is the core of egalitarianism. Your destiny is not determined by your birth; your opportunities not by your class. And the greatest way to preserve social mobility is to protect equality in educational opportunity.

Having all but jettisoned the equitable Gonski reforms to schools funding, the government has shifted its sights towards greater user pays in higher education, without knowing the consequences.

Like the most extreme measures of the 2014 budget, the government is taking a hit-first and talk-later approach.

While the Herald supports greater flexibility and freedom of choice across the economy, the Abbott government’s proposed reforms to higher education are at best premature and at worst an affront to the national ethos.

The Commonwealth will reduce its contribution to course fees by an average of 20 per cent. In return, universities will be free to increase fees at will up to the level they charge international students.

In theory, universities will charge more for better-quality offerings in high demand while focusing less on cheaper, less popular courses.

Australia does need elite universities at the cutting edge of research and, just as important, teaching. The quality of instruction at all universities needs to improve if we are to compete globally.

All this costs money. Taxpayers cannot be expected to fund an open-ended loans scheme without some eye to sustainability.

But how to achieve reform is problematic.

Under the government’s plans some courses may fall in price. Yet many others will cost much more, with a significant risk of fee gouging.

Rather than protect students to ensure equality of opportunity, the government plans to undermine one of the great egalitarian institutions of Australian public policy, the home-grown, income-contingent loan scheme HELP, formerly HECS.

Students will be forced to start paying off their HELP debts earlier and, most worryingly, the loans will accrue from the outset compound interest rather than mere indexation for inflation.

The personal debt blow-out threatens to increase the advantage for families which can pay fees upfront to avoid interest or help students as they embark on their chosen career.

More potential students without such support, along with those living in regional areas, may well baulk at the higher debt. Some may even shun university altogether, notwithstanding plans for universities to put 25 per cent of extra fee income into an uncertain scholarship scheme.

Students whose courses lead to socially important but less highly paid careers will be hit especially hard. Their debts will accrue most interest as they will take longest to repay. Fees and resultant student loans for nursing and teaching degrees will rise sharply, for instance, providing a significant deterrent to careers in the caring professions.

Women who spend more time out of the workforce will suffer too, as will mature students with a shorter working life.

At its core, this heavily market-based approach will force students to focus on courses that offer to return most financial gain personally. They will work against studies that bring breadth and depth to the sum total of community knowledge, often not in the business domain.

The fee freedom will certainly embed advantage among elite universities, which have the assets to market themselves most easily at the expense of smaller rivals.

But the extra income flowing to the big eight universities will not necessarily go into better teaching. Indeed, it may end up in research to bolster global rankings.  What’s more, extra fee income across all universities is just as likely to be invested in social or sporting facilities, rather than more and better lecturers or tutors.

Smaller regional universities will have the added pressure from non-public education providers who will be able to attract students by offering for the first time access to HELP-style loans for diploma and associate diploma courses. Private institutions often have a lower cost base and will be exposed to less regulation thanks to budget cutbacks.  No doubt some smaller public universities will reduce their offerings or worse.

The Herald believes Australians support equal access to university based on merit and that most taxpayers are happy to subsidise higher education for the good of all society.

The only questions are how much and who has to pay the most. It is a debate the Abbott government should have been leading before this budget, rather than delivering radical reform as a fait accompli.


  • Which enemies of the people are right behind this neo-liberal 'market' model for the universities?

    Yes, it's Mike Gallagher and his 'Group of Eight' fat-cat Vice-Chancellors, luxuriating in their stratospheric salaries and perks. That's who Fairfax should be investigating.

    Date and time
    May 20, 2014, 8:58AM
    • The trend is towards the US model where university education is excessively expensive. This favours wealth over competence. Hardly efficient.

      Good Logic
      Date and time
      May 20, 2014, 9:20AM
    • I guess that's the end of public funding for courses in Advanced Basket Weaving and African Drumming.

      Date and time
      May 20, 2014, 10:12AM
    • @GoodLogic: Absolutely agree. All that you need to know about the US system can be summed up in one fact: George W Bush went to Yale. We can aspire to a better system than that...

      Date and time
      May 20, 2014, 10:26AM
    • The Herald: "the Abbott government’s proposed reforms to higher education are at best premature".

      It seems the Herald is infected with Labor's disease of thinking you need to wait until the crisis is full blown before taking any action to fix the problems.

      Date and time
      May 20, 2014, 1:20PM
    • There is no reason for taxpayers to subsidise the education of GP's who earn a average of 300K and specialists who earn millions of dollars.

      If these degrees were charged more and considering they cost a lot of money to run then, then so be it.

      If is simply hypocritical for SMH to cry about fairness and then oppose changes to courses enjoyed by private school kids who can pay more.

      These kids currently are generously subsidised by taxpayers and constitute the bulk of students of these elite courses like medicine etc.

      Date and time
      May 20, 2014, 1:59PM
  • Abbott is successfully implementing a New World Order for Australia - a nation increasing polarized - the Haves and the Have-Nots.

    Notions of Egalitarianism, Fair-Go and Mate-ship are now dusty relics, conveniently pulled from storage on Australia Day and ANZAC Day for the sense of national pride they imbue. That was the Australia of our past. The new Australia is a very different nation indeed. How very sad.

    Date and time
    May 20, 2014, 9:01AM
    • +1

      It's time for Australians to fight back now as soon it will be too late and we will be living a 21st century type of feudalism.

      Date and time
      May 20, 2014, 11:30AM
    • I grew up in an Australia that was about hard work and getting on, not this pathetic gen Y 'where is my gov't funding' joke of an Australia we have now.

      I have never received $1 in gov't hand outs. You left wing bludgers make me sick. What have YOU ever done for Australia?

      The nanny state is already with us, and too many Aussies are making excuses for the under performance in life, when it's their own apathy that is the reason.

      Date and time
      May 20, 2014, 12:45PM
    • Totally agree Monique. These are frightening changes indeed, altering us at our core. What angers/disgusts me most is that such radical changes should have only ever be considered in the context of an election - both for the extended debate that allows and an essential mandate. Joe and Jen Public never saw this one coming!

      Date and time
      May 20, 2014, 2:02PM

More comments

Comments are now closed

HuffPost Australia

Follow Us

Featured advertisers