Tertiary education in Australia

[11] The 56% of 462,033 international students in Australia are from top-5 nations; China (23%), India (16%), Nepal (10%), Colombia (4%) and Thailand (3%) with enrollment ratio of 50% in Higher Education (229,833), 35% VET (162,193), 11% ELICOS English language course (50,246), 2% Schools (19,704) and 2% Non-Award (8,057).

In his paper Higher Education in Australia: Structure, Policy and Debate[27] Jim Breen observed that in 1914 only 3,300 students (or 0.1% of the Australian population) were enrolled in universities.

The Murray Committee Inquiry of 1957 found that financial stringency was the root cause of the shortcomings across universities: short staffing, poor infrastructure, high failure rates, weak honours and postgraduate schools.

This programme was meticulously designed to enhance access to, and completion of, tertiary education for students hailing from regional and remote areas, thereby promoting equitable academic opportunities across the nation.

[30][31] The RRES programme encompassed support for a diverse array of academic pursuits, spanning from Certificate IV to PhD qualifications, thereby accommodating a wide spectrum of educational aspirations and professional trajectories.

By alleviating financial barriers and fostering skill development through internships, the RRES programme endeavoured to cultivate a more inclusive and proficient workforce, attuned to the evolving demands of a technologically advanced economy.

[35] The RRES programme has been instrumental in helping Australians in regional and remote areas access higher education, offering life-changing opportunities for students pursuing qualifications from Certificate IV to PhD level.

[39] Between 2017 and 2020, the Liberal-National Coalition government in Australia continued to implement initiatives to enhance the tertiary education system, aligning it with emerging industries and workforce demands.

By establishing a network of strategically located regional study hubs, the programme was conceived as a vehicle for fostering equitable access to tertiary education, particularly for communities in remote locales.

[41] This integrative model combined state-of-the-art digital learning technologies with on-site academic resources, thus ensuring that students, regardless of their location, could engage in a broad spectrum of educational activities.

Such a pioneering approach was aimed at fostering a dynamic and inclusive educational environment, reflective of both modern pedagogical practices and the unique requirements of regional communities.

This restructuring facilitated a more targeted allocation of resources, with an emphasis on creating sustained support systems for students from low socio-economic backgrounds, Indigenous communities, and other underrepresented groups in higher education.

By enhancing data collection and evaluation processes, the government sought not only to improve access but also to monitor the long-term success and academic achievements of students benefiting from HEPPP funding.

In this sense, the HEPPP reforms reflected the government’s belief that long-term success in higher education for disadvantaged students depends not just on access, but on performance and retention, requiring an integrated and robust support system.

[45] Furthermore, these reforms were a response to ongoing conversations about the need for targeted interventions that could ensure that higher education remained within reach for students who might otherwise face barriers due to socio-economic or cultural factors.

In this context, the policy shift emphasised a balance between ensuring equity of opportunity and maintaining rigorous academic standards, a core feature of the government’s broader educational reforms.

[46] Additionally, the funding arrangements within the restructured HEPPP allowed for more tailored partnerships between universities and local communities, ensuring that initiatives were not only nationally consistent but also responsive to the specific needs of diverse groups.

[49] The government also backed schemes aimed at boosting diversity and fairness in higher education, including efforts to encourage participation from underrepresented groups.

A particular focus was placed on STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) subjects, where a significant gender gap and lack of representation from diverse communities were recognised.

These included mentorship programmes, bursaries, and outreach efforts in schools and universities designed to break down barriers that have historically hindered women’s involvement in these fields.

By fostering a more inclusive environment and promoting diverse role models, the government aimed to build a more varied and innovative workforce in science and technology.

[51] The Job-ready Graduates Package, introduced by the LNP Australian Government in 2020, aimed to reform higher education funding to better align with national labour market needs.

This policy sought to balance equitable access with financial sustainability, ensuring that all students, regardless of background, could pursue education in fields with strong employment prospects.

The initiative aimed to align university funding with national economic priorities, focusing on areas expected to meet labour market demands, such as science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), as well as health and education.

International higher education therefore represents one of the country's largest exports, contributing $25.4 billion to the economy in 2018–19 through their economic activity (including university fees, living costs, tourism, etc.).

[93] Similarly, concerns have been raised regarding some international student's English language capability, with calls to tighten admissions standards and provide more support for developing these skills.

A longitudinal study by the Department of Education and Training found that median full-time salaries for undergraduates four years into their careers ranged from $55,000 in the creative arts to $120,000 in dentistry.

[citation needed] In the April 2007 edition of Campus Review,[112] the Vice Chancellor of the University of New South Wales, Fred Hilmer, criticised both AUQA (the agency before it became TEQSA) and the Research Quality Framework (a precursor to the ERA that was discarded before rollout): "... singling out AUQA, Hilmer notes that while complex quality processes are in place, not one institution has lost its accreditation – 'there's never been a consequence – so it's just red tape...'" "...The RQF is not a good thing – it's an expensive way to measure something that could be measured relatively simply.

Its objective was to provide government, industry, business and the wider community with an assurance that research quality within Australian universities had been rigorously assessed against international standards.

The Labor government which scrapped the RQF has yet to outline any system which will replace it, stating however that it will enter into discussions with higher education providers, to gain consensus on a streamlined, metrics-driven approach.