To be clear, there are good reasons for ‘free’ education; learners benefiting from full public funding to undertake post school tertiary education, training and skilling. So, this is not a critique about why ‘free’ is wrong. Rather, it is an examination of current ‘free’ offers, how they work and cross-compare, with a particular focus on their policy coherence and applied impacts.
This analysis takes a wide view of ‘free’, specific to four Australian Government (AG) programs. The takeout is that ‘free’ has value, but policy and delivery can be done far better. Why so?
What’s ‘free’ – four examples
Skills for Education and Employment (SEE)
The SEE program is an ongoing program investing ~$436 million over 4 years in ‘foundational skills’ that ‘delivers free language, literacy, numeracy and digital skills training’ to Australians and other visa holders with work rights. This is to enable ‘adults with skills gaps to get the training to secure sustainable employment and undertake further education and training’.
Recently re-launched in two streams (general and First Nations), there are 22 providers (one Uni, 3 TAFEs, 18 Other) with nationwide SEE coverage, including class room, on-line and work-based options that may directly involve employers and unions.
Fee-free TAFE (FF-TAFE)
The FF-TAFE initiative is a major AG program, run in partnership with States and Territories, to provide free VET level training in courses of national priority. Commencing in early 2023, it was implemented with an initial 180,000 places and is now to be expanded to a further initiative of $1.5 billion and more than 500,000 places over 2023-26.
Governments collaboratively fund subsidised VET places under the National Skills Agreement. The ‘free’ element is public funding of what would otherwise be a student ‘out-of-pocket’ tuition expense. The Free TAFE Bill 2024 seeks to set up FF-TAFE as enduring from 2027 onwards.
Fee-free University Ready Courses (FF-Uni.RC)
The FF-UniRC initiative commenced implementation in 2025, with the AG investing ~$350 million over 4 years. Its purpose is to provide students with ‘free’ preparatory studies suited to gaining entry into a university-level course, boosting existing university enabling courses. It is estimated that by 2030 about 30,000 students will be studying using FF-UniRC each year.
Adult Migrant English Program (AMEP)
The AMEP program is dedicated to assisting new migrants and refugees. Starting in 1948, AMEP assists ~50 thousand eligible migrants each year with ‘free’ English language tuition, plus Australian life, living and digital skills as early steps towards settlement and employment.
The ANAO assessed (2024) existing AMEP service contracts to total ~$2.1 billion, or ~$287 million p.a. across 13 service providers (7 TAFEs, 6 Other). Recent reforms offer expanded hours for free tuition and extended eligibility to achieve higher outcome proficiency.
Comparing ‘Free’ – Purpose, design, implementation and impact
A superficial view is that cross-program comparisons would be meaningless as each has its own distinct purpose and clients – true enough. But there are two reasons to think deeper. First, there are learnings to be drawn across programs that have ‘free’ in common, especially eligibility and equity considerations. Secondly, these ‘free’ programs cost, in aggregate, more than $2 billion over 4 years. Public investment of this quantum heightens full accountability of the nation’s ‘free’ portfolio.
Recognise the size of the skilling task. The ABS Education and Work (2024 Table 22) estimates approximately 4.5 million people 15-74 years old are in the labour force ( around 2.8 million are not ), all of whom have no non-school qualifications. ‘Free’ needs to be optimally targeted to help lift their standing.
Issue 1: ‘Free’ Program Overlap
Since its inception in 2002 SEE has focussed on foundational skills (‘language, literacy, numeracy, digital’ skills) as demonstrated in courses like Cert I and Cert II in Vocational Pathways. The program has recently made two subtle yet specific expansionary changes.
SEE is now able to offer accredited training at higher level VET qualifications (like Cert III in Business, Cert III in Individual Support), with students enhancing their ‘foundational’ skills within such courses in pursuit of a potential employment outcome (listen to Carla’s story).
Whilst laudable, this policy change risks (modest) operational overlap of SEE’s purpose with FF-TAFE, offering the same courses to a common client cohort. This is reinforced by SEE’s redesign to now include “all Australians aged over 15 years who have left school removing the requirement to be a registered job seeker”. (i.e. no Workforce Australia’s mutual obligation requirements). Note, AMEP students receiving Centrelink payments gain points for such requirements.
And there is also reverse overlap with the SEE program. There is a specific Foundation Skills Initiative ($142 million over 5 years) that is now embedded in the National Skills Agreement.
Issue 2: ‘Free’ Program Linkages
Whilst SEE’s purpose will remain dominantly at lower level ‘foundational skills’, any risk of overlap with FF-TAFE, could be mitigated by an improved and targeted policy coordination.
FF-TAFE candidates could all undertake (unless exempt) an upfront assessment of current capability, like Core Skills Profile for Adults (CSPA). Based on this outcome, they could be offered a ‘free’ SEE place if that’s judged as the best next step suited to their needs, and not immediately an FF-TAFE place. South Australia uses a nuanced model of ‘Upfront assessment’.
On successful completion of SEE, students might then be offered a step up into an FF-TAFE course. Both would then be promoted as linked ‘free’ programs with distinct purpose, and ideally with mutually improved course ‘completion’ rates, using appropriate student tracking (below).
Issue 3: Eligibility for ‘Free’
All programs listed above have similar headline ‘citizenship’ eligibility tests e.g. Australians, or prescribed working visas, or in the case of AMEP, migrant status etc. It’s the next level of eligibility elements where complex and differing discrimination factors occur across programs.
AMEP eligibility is the clearest cut; the key determination being it is ‘available to migrants and humanitarian entrants aged 18 years and over’, and nothing more complex. Rightly so.
SEE eligibility requires candidates to be ‘aged 15 years and over and left school’, and nothing more than people who ‘need help with your reading, writing, maths, English language or digital skills’. The disadvantage being addressed is an individuals’ personal skills. The practical benchmark of ‘need help with’ is unstated, but the intent is targeting foundation skills (per ASQA Std 10.6). There appears no other SEE-specific test of disadvantage, or other equity measure.
FF-TAFE eligibility is far more complex to implement. This is because it’s seeking to do two things at once – a duality of intent. One is enrolling students, as a priority, in courses of specific national critical skill shortages. The second is targeting ‘priority’ groups being: ‘First Nations Australians; young people; people who are out of work or receiving income support payments; unpaid carers; women facing economic insecurity; women undertaking study in non-traditional fields; people with disability; certain categories of visa holders’, as well as regional students.
All ministers signed off ‘how these priority groups will be incorporated in local eligibility implementation plans’. Allocation of new FF-TAFE places will adhere to this same dual-intent, with the most recent sub-specification including pre-apprentices and construction courses.
By way of numbers, the FF-TAFE program has/will have <125,000 places per annum (excluding any like State-based ‘free’ programs). By way of full qualification VET courses, there were ~2.1 million training package and accredited VET program enrolments (TVA data 2023). As generous FF-TAFE is, it covers less than 10% of national VET full qualification enrolments each year.
With ‘free’ places going to ‘priority’ students in ‘skills needs’ courses, institutions must explain to students why there are some ‘free’ students’ rubbing shoulders with those fee-paying in the same class/workshops. This is now managed across institutions, within bounds of national policy.
Duality of intent also makes offers and enrolments complex to administer if the policy is to be faithfully implemented. It requires ‘priority groups’ brought to the front of the queue, to plug them into national skills priorities courses. This gives rise to local student rules to ‘use it or lose it’, or re-allocating any underutilized abandoned places, and limiting ‘freebies’ per person.
In practice, States and Territories have thus far quickly and commendably implemented FF-TAFE, as best they can, with some operational differences. This ‘varied State implementation’, including student demographics, is clearly noted in early reports of FF-TAFE enrolment data.
The last example is the FF-UniRC initiative. Just commenced in 2025, the AG issued a study assist student hand-book which explains that FF-UniRC is a ‘free’ supported place. The hand-book details eligibility criteria on ‘citizenships/visa’ status only and cautions just because ‘you are eligible for a FEE-FREE Uni Ready course does not mean you will be enrolled in one. You still have to be offered a place…and meet your provider’s entry requirement’. So, universities must determine and administer ‘offer and eligibility’ criteria.
Past practices of university foundation (aka. preparatory/bridging/enabling) programs are to prepare students for university level study, specifically to meet undergraduate entry requirements. Like the SEE program, this is assessed on educational preparedness/need, with no other criteria.
However, the HE Accord MYEFO states the FF-UniRC will “provide more students with an enabling pathway into higher education, with a focus on students from underrepresented backgrounds”, reiterated on the DoE web-site. This is an equity preference, akin to FF-TAFE.
Independent expertise notes there is ‘no domestic student eligibility restrictions on FF-Uni Ready places or the previous enabling places’ and that the AG has no ‘statutory’ basis to enforce such a ‘focus’. The quandary for Uni admissions is the funder pushing for ‘under-represented’ students.
This term has definition. The TEQSA Guidance Note on ‘Diversity and Equity’ says under-represented groups include: First Nations peoples; people of lower socio-economic backgrounds, disability, from remote, rural or isolated areas, first in their family to attend a university, non-English speaking backgrounds, women in under-represented courses such as engineering (i.e. a long list similar to, but not the same as ‘priority’ groups listed for FF-TAFE).
And FF-UniRC will likely be operating alongside full fee-paying university foundation courses, offered by multiple Uni College subsidiaries, spruiking credit transfer for capable (domestic and international) students into second year. All valued private revenue. So, who gets the ‘freebie’?
Issue 4: Cost of a ‘Free’ Place
It’s difficult to compare the costs of ‘free’. Any public funding per person (or course) will inevitably vary across programs given differences in educational input, course duration, extra supports and delivery institution. However, one (perhaps dubious) comparison is worthy.
The funding for FF-UniRC is now set at ‘$18,278 per FTE student in 2025 … a 43 per cent increase …per place on average, better reflecting the cost of delivering high quality courses’. This is close to governments’ annual expenditure per FTE in government schools. Independent estimates indicate that university ‘enabling’ funding was ~$3,886 per EFTSU in 2024.
VET AQF qualifications based on weighted average price benchmarks shows multiple Cert II-Cert IVs to be $10,000 or less, with a few at Diploma levels exceeding $18,000 (data from 2021).
A crude estimate is that $18k would fund near two full FF-TAFE VET Cert III/IVs vs. one FF-UniRC course, used to help gain university entrance (and likely without any specific accreditation outcome, noting that Undergraduate Certificates have recently been included in the AQF).
Many factors explain the difference; but $18+k per student is relatively generous in a VET world.
Issue 5: ‘Free’ Learner Support – ‘Wrap around/Needs based’
One reason for funding differences (per person/place) is the extent any program design provides students with ‘wrap around’ support beyond just tuition. These are direct support costs e.g. access to internet/laptops, extra on-line tutoring etc, or indirect costs e.g. transport, welfare support etc.
The AMEP is notable for being designed appropriate to client need with multiple support features e.g. free childcare, help from volunteer tutors, settlement advice, work connections.
The generous FF-UniRC per FTE funding is presumed to cover effective ‘wrap-around’ supports.
By contrast, the FF-TAFE program has far less ‘built-in’ (especially indirect) ‘wrap around’ funding. Some allowances in institutional budgets may support students as personal issues arise.
The opposite is proposed for universities with ‘Demand-driven Needs-based’ funding starting in 2026 (Accord MYEFO Summary pp15). This is ‘for wrap-around supports’ initially based on numbers of ‘low SES, 1st Nations and regional students’ (their study is not ‘free’, but they have preference in gaining HE places). Funding grows with each eligible enrolment, this used for direct and indirect equity interventions and supports, also aiding regional campus sustainability.
Issue 6: Qualification Completions in ‘Free’ Courses
Of these four ‘free’ publicly funded programs, only FF-TAFE has faced intense public scrutiny of student attrition and course completions. This is due to its public profile and design with the expectation of increasing VET program graduates in areas of critical national skills shortages.
The Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee’s just published report; and the dissenting report; on the proposed Free TAFE Bill 2024 considered inter alia the current evidence on course completions. There was broadly agreement that data on FF-TAFE course completions was still being compiled and incomplete (this requires a lapse time for study of up to 4 years).
There were more divergent opinions on the status of attritions/completions to date: either little difference from mainstream VET, or significantly worse with anecdotes of poor completion rates for students who attempted higher level VET quals, e.g. Cert IV in say cyber/IT/accounting, for which they were not adequately prepared, or lack prior relevant educational attainment.
By contrast, there is scant/no public scrutiny of student attrition or completion in SEE and AMEP programs, by tracking student progress either into further study and/or entering employment. Likewise, there is little public attention given to student progression in uni. foundation studies.
Issue 7: Outcomes for Students Attending ‘Free’ Courses
Students who benefit from ‘free’ places in all these programs are each on a journey, either to further study or for entry/progress in the labour force. Do clients of SEE or AMEP programs go on to say TAFE, or a job? How will the student outcomes of FF-UniRC be publicly tracked?
All students will have a Unique Student Identifier and most, in time, a tax file number. Longer-term impacts of ‘free-programs’ should be assessable by detailed longitudinal analysis using linked datasets, such as the ABS Person-Level Integrated Data Asset (PLIDA).
What’s typically missing is a linked ‘program fund-source-flag’. The national VET data custodian notes in its Senate submission ‘NCVER’s data systems do not currently distinguish FF-TAFE VET activity’. Aggregate data is only confidentially reported from all states direct to the AG.
Without a fund-source-flag, NCVER cannot interrogate FF-TAFE vs non-FF-TAFE completion rates; the same problem as in the Rudd era Productivity Places Program (PPP 2009-2012). PPP had two streams, Job Seeker PPP (‘free’ like FF-TAFE) and Existing Worker PPP (10% funded employer/privately). Anecdotally, Job Seeker completions were worse than Existing Worker.
Summary of cross program learnings
Learning 1: Clarity of purpose and intended beneficiary
‘Eligibility’ (or the less stringent ‘priority’) for ‘free’ is complex. It should be underpinned by fairness in directing public funds to people most in need and in circumstances most deserving. First Nations people, disabled students and migrants/refugees, clearly defined, are first deserving.
Whilst current eligibility for ‘free’ may seem reasonable at a program level, at a ‘cross-program’ level it presents as more of a muddled mishmash. ‘Equity/priority/diversity/underrepresented’ is a mix of personal educational attainment levels, plus, other indicators of disadvantage which are a mixed combination of; lack of financial means; family/social/cultural circumstances e.g. ‘1st in family’; and a person’s residence or location by post-code/geography.
Eligibility for SEE and FF-UniRC seem anchored only on an individual’s foundational skills and education, with the latter urged to also focus on students from ‘under-represented’ backgrounds.
By contrast, the new ‘effectively demand driven funding’ for HE equity students (who meet uni. entry requirement) includes low SES, regional or remote students, with these places decided by geographic proxies. Postcode proxies are known to risk flawed enrolment inclusions/exclusions.
Whilst well intentioned, programs have adopted their own expanded descriptor lists, with some commonality and inevitable divergence, of disadvantage or under-representation. These lack coherent, explained policy justifications where programs have notably different selected emphases across a wide ‘under-represented’ wingspan. This spans from an individual’s education status to their resident postcode, plus many multifaceted disadvantage traits in between.
‘Duality of purpose’ is not limited to FF-TAFE. It was seen in the extra 20,000 HE equity places where a prescriptive dual allocation policy was based on ‘national skills priority courses’ and equity students, being in this instance ‘regional and remote students, students from low SES backgrounds (lowest 25 per cent by the ABS Index of Education and Occupation), students with a disability, First Nations students, and those who are first in family to study at university’.
A critique notes: ‘By pursuing two separate goals in the one policy, meeting skills needs and increasing equity group participation, the AG reduces the chance of success in either objective’.
Learning 2: Administrative complexity and burden
Consequently, the more prescriptive the policy of ‘free’ (or equity place-preference), the more complex its faithful administration. It’s not a simple ‘all comers’ offer; nor ‘first come, first served’ when places come with complex preferences or priorities set by legislation or policy.
Enrolment processes must juggle real-time dynamics of the allocation and active use of all ‘free’ or ‘preference’ places to the ‘eligible’ cohort and all done in a timely manner within budget/place limits, avoiding any under and over allocation. It’s gets more complex when asking for proof of equity status, it’s burdensome and privacy invasive as students’ stand/log in at an enrolment desk.
In future, the task for unis will be like filling a concert stadium. The government is promising to fund more seats each year, with franchised unis having to fill – but not overfill – their allotted and available seats by offering tickets; skewed in ticket price by discipline; to those meeting entry standards under a policy prescription where some concert goers get entry preference over others.
Learning 3: Invest in upfront assessment of capability, need and interest
What you don’t want, even if cyber skills are ‘free’ and a national priority, is to plug people into such courses where they don’t have aptitude or needed basics. Further, students might be wrongly driven by price signal (‘free’) to enrol in courses for which they have no real passion or aptitude.
Time, expertise and resources must be built into a program upfront to assess students’ capability, needs and interests before a ‘free offer’ is made, especially those with limited past experience of training and academic attainment. Look to program design e.g. linking ‘free’ program offers.
Learning 4: ‘Built in’ essential wrap around and needs based supports
‘Free’ programs targeted at disadvantaged priority groups require well designed, practical and generous direct and indirect ‘wrap around’ supports built into program resources. There are many reasons why people may drop out, ability is but one, but far worse is lack of essential supports.
The AMEP, an unheralded major contributor to national social cohesion and migrants’ settlement success, examples well designed, built in, and adequately resourced supports.
Learning 5: Outcomes expectation, ‘self-esteem’ vs ‘completions’
Be clear about desired outcomes. ‘Free’ can deliver valuable intangibles, exampled by a major boost to individual self-confidence and esteem. With course attendance and sustained effort, students pull their hoodies back from their faces and stride onto a campus with newfound self-worth. Heartwarming stories of battling through adversity are found in both VET and HE.
Recognise also a decade or more of evidence that part VET qualification completion has significant job and workplace benefits for students, though less than full completers. Industry advocated in the PPP a decade ago for skill-sets to be funded, not only full qualifications. So full qualifications are not the be-all-and-end-all outcome, with employers wanting skilled staff.
The alternate is that ‘free’ delivers direct tangibles, i.e. formal accredited qualifications aligned to priority jobs openings. So don’t set up conditions of likely failure. There is copious evidence explaining likelihood of VET course completion and pitfalls along the student journey, all helping to explain VET student outcomes. There is equally deep research evidence on likelihood of participation and success in HE programs. So, to optimise this tangible, apply Learnings above.
Learning 6: Track and measure from start to beyond immediate finish
If the nation is to commit such large public funds for ‘free’, then it’s not enough for an auditor to belatedly report the $s were spent legally and for the purposes they were granted. Investment in tracking the impacts on individuals from start to well beyond program finish are required.
Tools like the ABS Person-Level Integrated Data Asset (PLIDA), better enabled with explicit program funding flags, are needed to gather the evidence of what’s working best, and how to then adjust and optimise program design and implementation. Current evidence depth is superficial.
End Notes
What’s unexplored here is the extent of any psychological impact of ‘free’ on individuals and their study motivation. It’s important, with likely evidence for both the positive and the negative case.
From a public policy perspective, one extreme of ‘free’ is full public funding of all tertiary (HE and VET) studies and training. The opposite are views of a prior Productivity Commission that held ‘fee-free’ TAFE is inefficient, distorting and erodes choice, and is best justified in only foundational and Cert I/II level qualifications. Neither extreme is tenable.
Governments think only in programs and the Federation is courage less in framing a tertiary-systems universal learning entitlement (ULE), spanning post schooling to whole of working life.
A ULE was mooted in the Interim HE Accord Report (pp51): “an appropriate combination of a public subsidy, a student contribution that would be paid through an income contingent loan as in the current HELP scheme, and, for some lifelong learning, an appropriate employer contribution’.
‘Free’ would then be built in as an intimate component of any ULE, directing public funds to people most in need and circumstances most deserving.
It never made the final Accord report.
