Higher education is an important policy area and while it has never possessed the electoral salience of school education, it can certainly arouse passion. This is apparent from the reaction to the Federal Government's proposed changes in higher education, where some of the consequences are fairly predictable, others less so.
An unregulated fee regime will result in an increase in course costs and, taken with a change in the formula for meeting HECS obligations, will mean substantially larger debts for students after their periods of study.
The prestigious Group of Eight institutions can be expected to exploit their reputational positions to charge top dollar, while those lower in the pecking order will face some challenges in determining the fee structure which reflects their market location. The ability of the top institutions to maximise revenue will only widen the gap between them and the rest, and even if this were not an intended outcome, it will surely not cause many sleepless nights for members of the Abbott Government.
The designers and defenders of HECS have long reminded critics that initial fears about debt-aversion on the part of potential students were never realised. With much bigger debt on the horizon, this feature of the system will be sorely tested. Economic logic suggests that at some point, potential students will be deterred by the prospect of what will seem like lifelong debt with its implications for family, relationships and home ownership.
How exactly does a 17-year-old decide whether selecting the degree from the prestige university over the same course at a newer institution justifies an extra decade of debt?
It seems unavoidable that many from the lower socio-economic ranks, unable to rely on any financial assistance from parents, will see no choice but to either opt out completely or plump for the cheapest option. It will take a very imaginative, targeted and generous scholarship scheme to work around that problem. One anomaly will be to open up places at prestige universities to affluent lesser-qualified applicants who previously would have missed out to a poorer but better qualified applicant now deterred by the higher fee levels.
It is difficult to predict whether these changes will affect higher education participation rates overall. But again, while this would be of concern to those who link an educated workforce with national growth and productivity, such a view is less than unanimous on the conservative side where some would contend that too many young people are attending university.
One possible unintended consequence may involve moderately well-off parents who wish to assist their children by saving to help fund their university studies. With HECS debts at a comparatively manageable level, such parents have been able to afford private school fees plus offer some level of support for tertiary costs, sometimes with upfront payments. For many parents, increased fees will mean doing both is no longer possible.
It may be that, faced with a choice, such parents will access the government school system and direct all their resources to supporting the costs of tertiary study, thus minimising the long-term debt borne by their children. This would be an interesting possible outcome, with potential benefits for the government school system.
Another area for speculation concerns the decision to allow non-university providers an enhanced role in the system, with domestic students able to access HECS for study at such institutions. Many of these are low-cost operators who might be able to offer some very attractive prices to students looking for the most economical deal, and some have a good record with small class sizes and individualised care programs.
But the quality of this sector varies and the risk that some students could find themselves receiving a less than satisfactory educational experience is not insignificant. In that context, the government's decision to cut funding to the national regulatory authority (the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency) is disturbing.
One of the more obnoxious features of the debate has been the conservative crocodile tears for the poor low-paid worker subsidising the greedy student. Leaving to one side the offensive implication that such a worker's child could never aspire to tertiary education, the tears are nowhere to be seen for that same worker's subsidisation of private health insurance, private schools and negative gearing (none of which they will access), not to mention the abolition of the low income super contribution which such workers had enjoyed.
It would be naïve to pretend the current higher education regime is some sort of egalitarian nirvana. The ability of affluent parents to pay their children's HECS upfront means such students enter the workforce debt-free, unlike those from more modest backgrounds. The G8 universities have had no difficulty maintaining their privileged status, able to view the competition for leadership positions from the next level down with a wry grin.
But for all that, the existing system's strength has been that when the kid from the western suburbs of Sydney or Melbourne was offered a place at the city's sandstone university on academic merit, she could take up that place while incurring no greater debt than she would have done at a lesser-ranked institution.
Is it too cynical to suggest that for certain conservatives, confining the riff-raff to low status institutions is evidence of the virtues of the market? Australia egalitarianism has seldom so lacked friends in high places.
Paul Rodan is an adjunct professor in the Swinburne Institute for Social Research, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne. He is a board member of a private education provider.