Opinion
Just when Australian universities are contending with the beginnings of decadal reform – under the Universities Accord and Australian Tertiary Education Commission – they must also have an eye on the potentially radically different political reality ahead.
Monty Python famously observed, “Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition”. Likewise, few observers of Australian politics, after the 2025 federal election, would’ve anticipated the resurgence of One Nation. Yet here we are. Most polls have Pauline Hanson’s party in second place, behind Labor, and ensconced as the unofficial opposition party, at the expense of the Liberal-National coalition.
For universities, the prospect of a very different policy landscape has entered the chat. Colleagues in the United Kingdom are already grappling with the prospect of a Nigel Farage fronted regime in a few years. The Reform UK party leader has labelled his nation’s universities as “drunk on foreign money” and as “poisoning the minds” of young people.
Ms Hanson has made similar remarks about Australian universities being “addicted to easy foreign student money”, and “out of touch” with ordinary Australians. Her Party’s recently released migration policy proposes a cap on international student visas at 100,000 per year, on the heels of a three-year temporary migrant arrivals reset. That would represent a collapse in international student education, Australia’s leading services export.
Policy detail from Mr Farage and Ms Hanson on critical questions for UK and Australian universities has been scant. For instance, their intentions aren’t clear on sustainable research investment nor public funding for student places. Equally, the long-term visions, ala the UK’s “Post-16” or Australian “Accord” reform agendas, is unarticulated.
Even the current minister is awake to alternative scenarios. Pressed recently on the extent of ministerial powers in the Australian government’s “Opening the doors of opportunity” bill, Jason Clare remarked, “We do need to future‑proof this legislation against a One Nation government that might want to use some of the powers in this bill for the wrong reasons.”
University leaders may question whether this is the right way to frame legislation. Recent history has seen all manner of rationales used to justify regulatory change. The Morrison government’s Job-ready Graduates package, under then Minister, Dan Tehan, sought to “increase the number of graduates in areas of expected employment growth” and “drive workforce participation and productivity”. Hard to argue with that, on paper. Difficult to swallow, however, for humanities students incurring soaring levels of debt.
Returning to the current government’s agenda for higher education, the wider motivations are less clear. Yes, the Minister is strongly committed to the target of increasing the proportion of working-age Australians with a degree to 80% by 2050. But the bigger picture from government is less clear, even unexpected in its apparent contradictions.
First, one of the most pointed disincentives to lifting university participation – the Job-ready Graduates scheme – remains in place, with students incurring heightened debt, and universities grappling with reduced real funding. Second, the Ambitious Australia report, setting out Australia’s research and innovation agenda, has not been accompanied by substantial new investment, nor renewed support for proven programs like Trailblazer. Third, international student flows into Australian universities appear captive to wider political pressure on immigration numbers, with visa fee hikes, refusals and slow processing constricting the operating budgets and stability of the sector.
Still, there are green shoots. Mr Clare has assured universities that the ATEC is doing the work on “the cost of teaching and everything”. This, he says, will help fix the issue. But he adds, “it’s complicated”, which reflects the larger fiscal pressures on Cabinet decision making. This is the realm of real-politik where it is likely winding back a multi-billion-dollar wrong turn on university funding isn’t top of the list of priorities.
On Ambitious Australia, universities may have more luck approaching the question of research funding indirectly. The government’s large-scale commitments in defence, energy transition, and – of late – data centres are coat-tails ready-made for university research to tighten and grow investment alignments.
The path ahead on international education will only get rockier. On this issue, universities needn’t anticipate a possible One Nation controlled government after the next election. The party’s influence is already impacting policy and decision making. Most notably via the apprehension the government, Coalition and co have in respectively announcing their targeted net overseas migration figure.
While indeed nobody does expect the Spanish inquisition, the inquisitors might already be in the room. None of this means universities should surrender ground to a narrower and more sceptical view of the value of higher education. It does, however, mean the arguments may need to change. It might mean universities need to reassert their civic value, before – or at least while – they look to shore-up structural concerns. Either that or its, as Python said, “fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency, an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope, and nice red uniforms.”
Dr Andy Marks is executive director of the Australian Technology Network (ATN) of universities