Accessible Public Education
May 16, 2026
01:15 AM
Accessible public higher education, therefore, provides a critical function in society. It produces the foundations for social advancement which improves economies, living standards, social cohesion and civic responsibility. Aside from material prosperity, higher education also allows students and scholars to examine human experience, ethics, and what constitutes a fair and just society. Universities play an important role in encouraging critical thought, democratic participation, cultural understanding, and intellectual diversity. They provide spaces where individuals can challenge dominant ideas, engage with complex social issues, and develop the knowledge necessary to contribute meaningfully to public life. This essay therefore emphasises that public higher education is a force for public good, and it utilises the disciplines of anthropology, international relations, philosophy, music, and marketing to illuminate this critical problem and provide policy recommendations which aim to ensure the public good can be delivered. In doing so, the essay highlights the importance of protecting universities from excessive marketisation and preserving their broader social, cultural, and democratic responsibilities for future generations.
The growing number of Year 12 students by 1987, combined with the federal government's unwillingness to fund any more university places for the burgeoning Year 12 cohort, caused the Hawke Labor Government to introduce the Higher Education Administration Charge (HEAC). This was a sum of $250 paid upfront by each university student.
As Chapman and Nicholls argue, with Chapman himself later becoming the architect of the HECS policy, the Higher Education Administrative Charge (HEAC) was largely symbolic, but nevertheless represented government approval for the idea of charging university fees. Although relatively small, HEAC marked an important ideological turning point in Australian higher education because it challenged the long-standing principle that university education should remain fully publicly funded. This eventually led, in 1988, to the Hawke Government introducing the Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS), bringing an end to tuition-free higher education in Australia. HECS fundamentally changed the educational culture of Australia by presenting free university education as a financial burden on taxpayers, including those who themselves may never attend university or benefit directly from higher education. In doing so, higher education increasingly came to be viewed as a private investment rather than a collective social good. However, universities under the Hawke and successive Keating Governments, despite the introduction of student contributions, were still heavily subsidised by the Commonwealth government. During the 1980s, around 80% of university funding came from the federal government. Since then, that proportion has significantly declined. This dramatic transformation emerged alongside the rise of neoliberalism under Prime Minister John Howard, further reshaping the structure, priorities, and cultural identity of Australian universities.
Neoliberalism did not only affect Australian policies and institutions, but also transformed the broader cultural mindset of Australian society. The way Australians spoke about education, opportunity, success, and personal responsibility changed significantly during this period. With the deregulation of education and the expansion of neoliberal economic thinking came a stronger belief in meritocracy. Meritocracy is the idea that individuals succeed entirely through hard work, talent, and determination, and conversely, that those who fail are personally responsible for their lack of success. This way of thinking places less attention on structural inequalities such as class, wealth, or unequal access to educational opportunities. However, studies into Australian education have consistently shown that socio-economic background remains one of the strongest predictors of educational success, including the likelihood of completing secondary school or obtaining a university degree. In reality, access to opportunity is still heavily shaped by financial security, social class, family background, and geographic location. Yet despite this, belief in meritocracy continues to dominate public thinking and political discourse in Australia. Many students themselves continue to believe that success is achievable purely through effort and determination, even while recognising the barriers created by inequality and economic disadvantage in their own lives. This demonstrates how deeply neoliberal values and individualistic thinking have become embedded within Australian society and education.
The consequences of this cultural shift, from Whitlam’s belief that universities are a public good designed to realise the potential of all citizens, to Howard’s emphasis on neoliberal governance, competition, and meritocracy, are especially visible in higher education today. The gradual reduction of federal funding for universities has increased the financial burden placed upon students, leading to larger student debts and growing concerns about accessibility and affordability. At the same time, the framing of educational success as entirely merit-based ignores the significant influence of socio-economic disadvantage and reinforces the idea that educational failure reflects personal weakness or poor choices. This has contributed to the widening of class and wealth inequalities within Australian society. Universities themselves have also changed in character and purpose. Increasingly, competition between universities for funding, rankings, international students, and prestige has encouraged institutions to operate more like commercial businesses than public institutions. Students are often treated as consumers purchasing a service, while universities focus heavily on market competitiveness, branding, and financial sustainability. As a result, educational priorities have gradually shifted away from public service, intellectual development, and social advancement toward economic performance and profitability.
Neoliberalism’s influence over the institutions and culture of Australian tertiary education continues today, representing a significant departure from Whitlam’s vision for Australian universities. Even compared to the Hawke and Keating Governments, which introduced tuition fees while still maintaining strong public investment in universities, contemporary higher education has become far more market-driven and financially competitive. Deregulation, reduced public funding, and the growing emphasis on individual responsibility have radically transformed Australian universities over recent decades. Within this increasingly meritocratic and commercialised culture, Whitlam’s belief that universities should function as a public good accessible to all Australians appears to be gradually fading from political priorities and public discourse. The modern university system now exists in a complex environment where economic pressures often outweigh broader social and educational goals, raising ongoing questions about equality, accessibility, and the future purpose of higher education in Australia.
Twitter: @blivia Brown
The growing number of Year 12 students by 1987, combined with the federal government's unwillingness to fund any more university places for the burgeoning Year 12 cohort, caused the Hawke Labor Government to introduce the Higher Education Administration Charge (HEAC). This was a sum of $250 paid upfront by each university student.
As Chapman and Nicholls argue, with Chapman himself later becoming the architect of the HECS policy, the Higher Education Administrative Charge (HEAC) was largely symbolic, but nevertheless represented government approval for the idea of charging university fees. Although relatively small, HEAC marked an important ideological turning point in Australian higher education because it challenged the long-standing principle that university education should remain fully publicly funded. This eventually led, in 1988, to the Hawke Government introducing the Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS), bringing an end to tuition-free higher education in Australia. HECS fundamentally changed the educational culture of Australia by presenting free university education as a financial burden on taxpayers, including those who themselves may never attend university or benefit directly from higher education. In doing so, higher education increasingly came to be viewed as a private investment rather than a collective social good. However, universities under the Hawke and successive Keating Governments, despite the introduction of student contributions, were still heavily subsidised by the Commonwealth government. During the 1980s, around 80% of university funding came from the federal government. Since then, that proportion has significantly declined. This dramatic transformation emerged alongside the rise of neoliberalism under Prime Minister John Howard, further reshaping the structure, priorities, and cultural identity of Australian universities.
Neoliberalism did not only affect Australian policies and institutions, but also transformed the broader cultural mindset of Australian society. The way Australians spoke about education, opportunity, success, and personal responsibility changed significantly during this period. With the deregulation of education and the expansion of neoliberal economic thinking came a stronger belief in meritocracy. Meritocracy is the idea that individuals succeed entirely through hard work, talent, and determination, and conversely, that those who fail are personally responsible for their lack of success. This way of thinking places less attention on structural inequalities such as class, wealth, or unequal access to educational opportunities. However, studies into Australian education have consistently shown that socio-economic background remains one of the strongest predictors of educational success, including the likelihood of completing secondary school or obtaining a university degree. In reality, access to opportunity is still heavily shaped by financial security, social class, family background, and geographic location. Yet despite this, belief in meritocracy continues to dominate public thinking and political discourse in Australia. Many students themselves continue to believe that success is achievable purely through effort and determination, even while recognising the barriers created by inequality and economic disadvantage in their own lives. This demonstrates how deeply neoliberal values and individualistic thinking have become embedded within Australian society and education.
The consequences of this cultural shift, from Whitlam’s belief that universities are a public good designed to realise the potential of all citizens, to Howard’s emphasis on neoliberal governance, competition, and meritocracy, are especially visible in higher education today. The gradual reduction of federal funding for universities has increased the financial burden placed upon students, leading to larger student debts and growing concerns about accessibility and affordability. At the same time, the framing of educational success as entirely merit-based ignores the significant influence of socio-economic disadvantage and reinforces the idea that educational failure reflects personal weakness or poor choices. This has contributed to the widening of class and wealth inequalities within Australian society. Universities themselves have also changed in character and purpose. Increasingly, competition between universities for funding, rankings, international students, and prestige has encouraged institutions to operate more like commercial businesses than public institutions. Students are often treated as consumers purchasing a service, while universities focus heavily on market competitiveness, branding, and financial sustainability. As a result, educational priorities have gradually shifted away from public service, intellectual development, and social advancement toward economic performance and profitability.
Neoliberalism’s influence over the institutions and culture of Australian tertiary education continues today, representing a significant departure from Whitlam’s vision for Australian universities. Even compared to the Hawke and Keating Governments, which introduced tuition fees while still maintaining strong public investment in universities, contemporary higher education has become far more market-driven and financially competitive. Deregulation, reduced public funding, and the growing emphasis on individual responsibility have radically transformed Australian universities over recent decades. Within this increasingly meritocratic and commercialised culture, Whitlam’s belief that universities should function as a public good accessible to all Australians appears to be gradually fading from political priorities and public discourse. The modern university system now exists in a complex environment where economic pressures often outweigh broader social and educational goals, raising ongoing questions about equality, accessibility, and the future purpose of higher education in Australia.
Twitter: @blivia Brown