Higher education deregulation

The question of higher education reform initiated through fee deregulation is an emotive issue in Australia, driven by ideological thought, such reforms are not fundamentally about who just pays the bills. It is passionalely argued, fee deregulation seeks to change the basic nature of higher education policy in Australia. 

The higher education funding system, implemented by Liberal Prime Minister Robert Menzies saw the then majority state-funded public universities empowered with the prerogative to serve the public; the arguement against private corporations acting as universities, business schools and colleges selling qualifications consumed solely as an individual benefit is somewhat mute. Worldwide data refutes such claims with French provider INSEAD, Swiss IMD, Spanish IE Busines School and Lese all well received in the corporate world. Private universities currently operate in Australia, Notre Dame University and the newly certified Torrens University are well received, as are private business schools, such as, the Australian Institute of Business.

The Menzies government more than quadrupled higher education investment; dramatically expanding available provision, building new universities, enhancing existing facilities. Menzies fully understood advancing learning outcomes was socially and personally productive. All Gough Whitlam did was continue carry through with the Menzies government core policy platform, claiming credit along the way. Whitlam's core principal was to make higher education free for all, an interesting note, it was the Hawke government and not Malcolm Fraser that brought back student fees for higher education.

It is claimed universities serve the public good with a to pursue unprofitable truth, however, we all understand universities are currently run as businesses. After all, they churn out great volumes of business and commerce degrees coupled with highly paid MBAs and Master of Management, lets not forget accounting majors. Menzies argued cultural awakening, rigorous social analysis and scientific discovery would be distorted if approached solely in terms of future financial interest. The last boom turned out graduates walking straight into triple figure salaries, at first opportunity they are lured overseas not paying tax in Australia accumulating personal wealth. These graduates are recruited directly from university, the quality and range of recruitment alone is a selling point for degrees.

But who is subsidising university graduates? It is, of course, the taxpayer, who more than likely never having the opportunity to attend university themselves pays for the individual to increase their personal earning potential. Now, if we have a system where the graduate must work in the public service at a certain (lower) pay grade for a qualifying period or serves the public interest through community work, then yes, I'm all for it. That is the basic nature of an apprenticeship, after all, why should the trades people of Australia subsidise university graduates after four years of low wages themselves, paying tax along the way to give the more fortunate a free ride?