NewsBite

Plan for uni revolution, but at what cost to taxpayers?

Fifteen years after the Bradley review of higher education, the Australian Universities Accord Final Report is timely. It comes as the nation needs more people, especially the young, to be better educated and skilled. The report, produced after a 12-month review led by engineer, scientist and former academic Mary O’Kane, aims high, as it should. Pressure on the system is being felt every day, the report said, “through chronic shortages of skilled professionals, including early childhood educators, teachers, aged-care workers, nurses, doctors, and more. And increasingly, Australia is going to need greater numbers of engineers and others to transform our energy grid, advance our manufacturing sector, drive new discoveries and innovations, make our agriculture more sustainable, and build new public infrastructure for our growing cities and regions”.

Small changes are not enough, the review found. It recommends that at least 80 per cent of the workforce will need a VET or university qualification by 2050, up from the current 60 per cent, with implementation of changes to be phased. As a means to increase tertiary participation among the disadvantaged, students from outer suburban areas, the regions and Indigenous students, the review urges the government to double the number of university places in the next 25 years, reduce the fees students pay in some subjects and reform the HECS loan scheme to ease the financial impact on graduates. It also recommends the establishment of an Australian Tertiary Education Commission to steer the changes. As Education Minister Jason Clare and his cabinet colleagues consider their response to the report they must consider a few issues.

The first, and hardest, is cost. The proposals outlined are uncosted and would cost the budget bottom line billions of dollars a year, when it is already under pressure from the NDIS, the impact of an ageing population and the need to urgently lift defence spending. Taxpayers whose families do not attend university are entitled to ask whether a greater transfer of their taxes to those who do, or who want to, is fair. However disadvantaged some students may be to start with, graduates have higher-than-average earning capacity and a responsibility to pay some of their way. Many taxpayers would see paying student nurses and teachers for the practical work that is part of their courses as generosity pushed to absurd lengths. Changing the HECS rules would also raise concerns.

Second, as Tim Dodd and Natasha Bita report, the review envisages a redistribution within the university sector itself through a revenue-based contribution or “tax’’ on universities – with the wealthiest paying the most – to a $10bn future fund to benefit all universities. Half the capital would be funded by taxpayers, and half by the sector, out of international student fees, philanthropy if not tied to a specific project and engagement with industry. University of Sydney vice-chancellor and Group of Eight chair Mark Scott condemned that proposal as “extremely poor public policy”. It would mainly harm five of the Group of Eight universities with large numbers of high-fee-paying international students – Sydney, Melbourne, Monash, UNSW and Queensland – which are among the main drivers of research in the nation.

Third, the recommendations raise issues about intellectual rigour and course quality. Universities are already concerned, Bita wrote recently, that too many school leavers are ill-prepared for university, without advanced maths. That is due to teacher shortages and also the reluctance of many school students to enrol in advanced maths and hard sciences. Bridging courses and school reforms would have a role to play. Lifting quality, as well as participation rates, must remain a central goal of the sector.

Add your comment to this story

To join the conversation, please Don't have an account? Register

Join the conversation, you are commenting as Logout

Original URL: https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/editorials/plan-for-uni-revolution-but-at-what-cost-to-taxpayers/news-story/c727b2dc7891b33748917a7b17f967cd