Education Minister Jason Clare has a new blueprint for tertiary education. Commissioned in his first months in office, and delivered last week by Mary O’Kane, the blueprint has been given the grand title of the Universities Accord.
At stake is the future of one of the nation’s largest export industries and some of the country’s most prestigious and influential institutions — not to mention the prospects of a generation of young people, who the accord says will increasingly require post-secondary qualifications in an upskilling and competitive labour market.
Perhaps predictably, no-one is really in accord about the accord. Instead, the release of its final report has reignited a fierce debate about the future of Australian universities.
There’s no question Australian universities need a policy overhaul. The accord’s report delivers a stinging indictment of the state of tertiary education, painting a picture of an increasingly unequal system struggling to properly teach students, or even to properly pay its staff. As eminent academic Graeme Turner wrote this week, the key takeaway is that “our universities are busted”.
Turner observes that “students are dropping out, academics are burning out, and government has been tuned out for decades”.
Many who study or teach at a big Australian university will concur. Students are hard-pressed and disconnected. The spiralling cost of living — especially housing — means few enjoy the leisurely campus lifestyle of yore. Instead, students squeeze video lectures and overcrowded classes in between multiple part-time jobs. Unsurprisingly, university enrolments have started to plateau in recent years, and the drop-out rate is climbing.
University staff are disaffected, many eking out precarious short-term contracts marked by insecurity and wage theft. Teaching quality is declining, while student-to-staff ratios are high and rising.
A recent restructure at Australian Catholic University encapsulates the uncertainty academics feel. After scouring the world, ACU recruited a series of high-profile scholars in fields such as history and philosophy to boost the university’s international research profile. Just a few years later, however, ACU reversed course, announcing a string of redundancies in the very disciplines it had head-hunted for.
What should we do? O’Kane’s final report provides a big-picture plan for reform of a sclerotic and under-funded sector. There are 47 recommendations, some of them already bitterly contested. This immediately raises questions about whether Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Minister Clare really want bold reform.
Some of the report’s goals seem heroic: the headline ambition of lifting enrolments from 800,000 to 1.8 million, for instance, will more than double the size of the tertiary sector. It represents a historic expansion that Clare has already compared to the growth of secondary schooling since the 1980s. O’Kane’s recommendation to boost research funding also won’t come cheap.
Funding this expansion will require tens of billions of dollars. But the report is mostly silent on how this money should be found. Student fees are already high enough to discourage many low-income school leavers, and government funding has flatlined for decades.
Australian universities have squared this circle by recruiting an ever larger number of lucrative international students, and using their fees to cross-subsidise domestic teaching and research. This huge cohort of foreign student revenue is the source of the universities’ proud boast that they are one of Australia’s largest export industries.
But the international student model creates its own problems: it favours the largest and most prestigious universities, supercharging an already unbalanced sector and placing uncomfortable pressure on capital city housing and infrastructure. So many international students are arriving in our big cities that they appear to have placed measurable upward pressure on rents.
The report’s most controversial recommendation is a kind of tax or levy on the rich universities, forcing them to contribute to a Higher Education Future Fund. Group of Eight vice-chancellors have predictably hit the roof, using their high media profile to savage the idea. The University of Sydney’s Mark Scott called the fund “bizarre”, claiming it was “a tax on universities themselves”.
The confected outrage suggests O’Kane’s report may have hit the mark. Australian universities are very unequal. The Group of Eight universities vacuum up the vast majority of the sector’s philanthropic donations and are sitting on billions of dollars of assets, including some of the most valuable real estate in the country. O’Kane has pointed out the obvious: the sandstone unis can afford to give some wealth back to their poorer cousins at regional and suburban institutions.
Now that the dust has settled, the battle lines have been drawn. On one side are the vice-chancellors of rich universities, like Scott and Monash University’s Sharon Pickering. On the other side are students from low-income backgrounds. In such a contest, you wouldn’t bet on the students.
Clare’s challenge will be to convince his cabinet colleagues that university reform is as important as Navy frigates or another round of cost of living relief. And indeed, winding back the ruinous indexation of HECS and HELP repayments certainly will help many middle-age graduates struggling to make ends meet. In a speech this week, Clare hammered home the importance of “a workforce where 80% have a tertiary qualification”.
If Clare wants that, he and Jim Chalmers are going to have to pony up a lot of cash.
O’Kane told university bosses last week that the real question on funding was not whether we could afford it, but “can we afford not to do it?” Observers of politics will be sceptical. Governments of both major parties have considered that question in recent decades, and the answer has been “yes”.
Disclosure: Ben Eltham is an elected representative of the National Tertiary Education Union at Monash University.
Late to the party. The government gutted the sector during the pandemic. Abandoned the overseas students. Gave the money to Qantas and Harvey. Complete fools.
The mere idea of a population of 80% graduates is terrifying, unless they graduate in plumbing, carpentry and electrical trades. Also boilermaking and heavy diesel mechanics. Crane drivers. Wharfies. Many others that politicians don’t seem to have heard of, or felt the need for.
Asking for sanity from Canberra is a waste of breath. We should have cloned Gough while we had him so we could slip him in now as Gough Mk2. A couple of dozen of the redhead while we’re at it.
Yeah I baulked at the 80% figure too, but I think the 80% ‘tertiary’ qualification includes both uni degree and VET (tradie) quals.
Yes, I believe it does. See my reply to M P.
And what about all the aged care workers we are going to need? They don’t need to go to uni do they?
It would be nice if government committed to fund higher education to the level of the OECD average of higher ed funding as percentage of GDP. Not the top of the table, just the OECD mean would be a huge help. We have been near the bottom of that table since the Howard-Vanstone cuts of 1996. (Check out the annual OECD reports entitled Education at a Glance). That is not inevitable, it has been the result of political decisions.
“Jason Clare has a blueprint to radically change higher education in Australia. Can he fund it?”
Yes, yes we can. Very easily in fact, we can afford anything we want, what we need however is sufficient resources to provide for students
Thanks Franky. Maybe they’ll listen eventually
My son is a tradie aged 42,working on a big building project in Brisbane which employs about 500 workers.As he tells me,the youngest man on the whole site is 36.As he rightly says,what will happen when the last trade retires? The younger generation are avoiding such jobs and this babble about the need for university degrees certainly won’t help things.
Clare has been talking about 80% of kids going to uni OR TAFE. Unfortunately, we are still seeing the legacy of the neo-liberal run-down of the public TAFE system by both parties since the 1980s. (If I remember rightly, it was Labor in Victoria who decided that public VET-sector funding should be “contestable”, and the sector was quickly overrun with spivs looking for public money and fleecing foreign students.) Only recently, Labor has realized they need to resuscitate the public TAFE sector.
Resusciatating the TAFE sector now is too little too late – there is a shortage of talent left, its centralised and focused on survival as the culture of contestability has eroded quality and pastoral care. Throwing money at it wont fix it in the short and probably medium term.
TAFE qualifications aren’t cheap, either- not since the government allowed the private so-called colleges to offer recognised TAFE level certificates and diplomas. The fees went through the roof and there were quite a few scandals. Some of you might remember them.
At the same time- at least in my part of the care sector- a diploma stopped qualifying you for the pay level and positions it used to do. You need a degree from a university, now.
TAFE has been devalued in more ways than one- so has experience.
Probably reflects the state of demographics, or decline, in the permanent population (ex. NOM net Oz migration/border churn) which is now skewing towards boomers and retirement; see politics and MSM catering towards the same above median age voter.
Really ?
I’ve been told there are far more people looking for apprenticeships than those willing to take them on.
Jason Clare eh? Self-confessed Catholic and wowser when it comes to moral, especially sexual moral matters. Minister for Immigration in a former life whose claim to fame was to get another item inserted into the Incoming Passenger Card for declaration for question 1 – illegal pornography. Whatever that means. Can mean anything at all depending on whether you come from Pakistan or Sweden. But good ole Captain Catholic got it in because of his concern for things that used to get the Festival of Light, the Right to Life and other religious right-wing groups that flourished in the late 70s onwards excited. Like pornography. But illegal pornography? I know. I was in Home Affairs when it happened. You need to do a Wellness training course first followed by a Regulation 4A course to delineate and distinguish what is legal from illegal pornography or what used to be called and maybe still is, Objectionable Material. Again discursive. Loaded. Contested. You might be surprised but I can that on the basis of this experience and analysis of Jason Clare, whatever he does, it will fail. The result will be sub-optimal.
In answer to your question and discussion point I can tell you the answer is no and the whole policy will be a massive disappointment. Labor has not intention of funding this level of education. They don’t fund adequately the NDIS. They don’t fund Medicare adequately. No dental or mental health funding or bulk billing through Medicare for these crucial items. Labor are, it says here, committed to AUKUS and a $280 billion nuclear submarine purchase/production program so may find funding the additional amount required for tertiary education expansion of the order of magnitude required to get 80% of Australians to fit into that category a major challenge regardless of other non-fiduciary challenges.
I don’t hate Jason Clare per se but I just find him to be a boofhead.
I’ve just checked Clare’s CV on the Parliament of Australia website and can see no reference to him being Minister for Immigration. He was Minister for Home Affairs, maybe that’s what you’re referring to? I do note, on another website that (for what it’s worth)_ he didn’t attend Catholic schools. Could you provide a reference for his “self-confessed” Catholicism.
I have no dog in this fight, just surprised at the claims made, happy to have the gaps in my knowledge remedied.
No . You’re quite correct. He was Minister for Home Affairs and that included, even in 2011, Customs – precursor to Border Force. Around this time the IPC changed to incorporate for Question 1 – for those of us who travel overseas – a mention of illegal pornography. There is enough anecdotal material to suggest he made the changes. He may not be a Catholic, (I thought he was but stand corrected again) but he is a wowser. Point I am making is what the hell is illegal pornography. I can suggest a few things but the Moderator may have other ideas on my freedom of speech in this regard. I thought for all money he was a Catholic as most wowsers are. He may still be. I must have the touch of the Tom Urens about me. He had a fear of Catholics after they ruined his party which is why he voted for Whitlam instead of Arthur Caldwell in 1967.
Thank you for responding. Catholics equals wowsers is obviously a matter of judgement (and maybe experience), but I do suspect that the gambling and liquor industries do better out of Catholics than they do out of other religions.
A risky aside: Emma Husar obviously didn’t think Clare was a wowser.
A final point: Arthur Calwell did not contest the Labor leadership in 1967: the great Gough beat Cairns, Daly, Crean and Beazley.
Sorry. Corrected again. I just remember Arthur, who I admire a lot, being pushed. That was why he never contested. Tom Uren was reported to have said: “One Mick in the party is enough”.
By wowserism I meant in terms of sexual morality not substance abuse or gambling though I only remember horse racing as the main culprit. Perhaps it still is. Catholics were the most wowseristic sexually and I think that ws because they feared their daughters getting pregnant. Protestants were a bit more liberal here.
Emma Husar was a bad choice. God, Labor have made some. As I said, read Q1 of the Dept of Immigration Incoming Passenger Card – even if you are not travelling. Before Jason Clare, there was no mention of pornography in Q1. Once he got there, it was inserted, pardon the pun. I just wanted to point out that no lay person can define what is or is not illegal pornography and to do so, you need to do a Wellness Check and then a Reg 4A course. It is a joke. Adding more things in to give government officials more work adds to cost and time. I just think he is a boofhead.
Glad I haven’t travelled overseas since this “development” with incoming passenger cards.