Blueprint for higher education disruption is in – now for the hard part

It is a far-ranging and well-considered interim report, and if the Australian Universities Accord is introduced in its entirety it will be easily the biggest disruption to our tertiary system since the Hawke-era Dawkins reforms of 40 years ago. The question is whether Education Minister Jason Clare can shepherd this ambitious blueprint for long-term change through a period when federal politics will be absorbed with short-term pressures of cost of living and housing shortages.

Hanging over more than 70 practical recommendations for participation targets, expanded access, focused courses and integrated education for a modern economy is the problem of funding a system that is comprehensive and financially sustainable. The report is blunt about the need for a new funding model that moves Australia back to a more demand-driven system, but it does not canvas in detail what an alternative may look like. Mr Clare says he wants a debate across the next few months before the final accord report in December; the question of how to calculate student fees and government contributions must remain front and centre of that conversation.

This is a practical rather than philosophical document – it assumes the social and economic value of knowledge, but it also suggests a much closer integration of university study and vocational skills training than we have seen in this country’s tertiary system. The report talks of “improving the integration of higher education and VET to create new types of qualifications – starting in areas of national priority like clean energy, the care economy, and defence” and “addressing barriers that prevent VET and higher education working together, especially in courses and institutions that involve both sectors”. There is no real surprise here; the world has been moving in this direction in the past few years as technology has revolutionised jobs and wealth creation. But this is an explicit and welcome recognition of the constant calls from industry for better skills training. Changing university curriculums to ensure workers have the skills needed to build the national economy is now recognised as inevitable. So, too, is the need to have more Australians in tertiary education, and most of the immediate changes Mr Clare has agreed to address this issue. He has been at pains in recent days to highlight his plans to encourage poor, disadvantaged, regional and Indigenous students into higher education. These groups are desperately under-represented and there can be no argument against initiatives such as student study hubs. Initiatives to ensure students pass rather than fail may also be appropriate but not at the cost of quality or excessive extension of degrees. A national regional university (created from existing institutions) to sit alongside the Australian National University is another possible way to deliver high quality to the regions. But the biggest challenge will be to ensure all Australians have access to a world-class and appropriate post-school education at a price point that balances student debt with taxpayers’ contributions. The system has become dangerously dependent on international students, but at the National Press Club on Wednesday Mr Clare made it clear Labor had no intention of blocking such a lucrative revenue stream. What is on the cards, however, is a levy on the fees flowing from overseas students. According to the report: “Such a mechanism could provide insurance against future economic, policy or other shocks, or fund national and sector priorities such as infrastructure and research.”

In the short term, the government has acknowledged the dire financial situation of some universities, announcing it will continue Covid-era emergency funding for another two years. In the longer term, it says, we need to look at establishing “clear principles for public and private investment that underpins the higher education funding system”. The review panel has offered a “back to the future” idea of establishing an independent tertiary education commission to look at policy settings and offer expert advice to the government about future needs, with a nod towards the need to collaborate with vocational education and training. A separate commission no doubt would be welcomed by universities, many of which have never recovered from the loss of independence when the commission, which had existed in some form since 1959, was abolished in 1988. The danger of a new TEC would be an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy and cost to the system. The cost to students via HECS, now retitled HELP, repayments has been cited as a reason students say thanks but no thanks to university, but the report is relatively low-key on this, recommending only that attention be paid to “revising student contribution amounts and HELP repayment arrangements to ensure students are not being overly burdened with debt”. Whether that morphs into a system of means testing for students is another matter.

More than anything, this document – while acknowledging the value of our universities – is a wake-up call to the institutions that the old ways will no longer cut it with a nation demanding a very different product.