Beyond Free University: Targeting the Barriers to Higher Education
…Unsplash
For law students, the question of free university is not abstract. In 2026, law sits in the highest Commonwealth Supported Place (CSP) contribution band, with a maximum student contribution of $17,399 per equivalent full-time student load.[i] The Australian Government has also set a target for 80% of working-age people to hold a tertiary qualification by 2050.[ii] If higher education is expected to serve a larger share of the population, the allocation of its cost matters. This article argues that Parliament has the legal capacity to make Commonwealth-supported university tuition-free without dismantling the existing system, but universal fee abolition would be a blunt access reform. A stronger model would target fee-free study towards groups for whom financial pressures most restrict participation, replace lost university revenue through Commonwealth funding, and address the broader financial pressures that tuition reform does not remove.
Australia has changed how the cost of university education is divided between the government and students over time. The Whitlam Government abolished university and technical college tuition fees from 1 January 1974.[iii] The Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS) commenced in 1989 under the Higher Education Funding Act 1988 (Cth), requiring students to contribute while permitting deferred, income-contingent repayment.[iv] HECS was later incorporated into the broader Higher Education Loan Program (HELP), with the Commonwealth supported place loan now called Higher Education Contribution Scheme-Higher Education Loan Program (HECS-HELP).[v]
The present system is governed principally by the Higher Education Support Act 2003 (Cth) (‘HESA’).[vi] A CSP already combines a Commonwealth contribution with a student contribution. The Commonwealth contributes through the Commonwealth Grant Scheme (CGS), while the student pays a contribution set by the provider within statutory limits. Eligible students may defer that contribution through HECS-HELP.[vii] Free university therefore does not require a wholly new funding structure. It requires changing how the existing cost is divided.
The HESA already provides a mechanism for expanding fee-free study. Section 169-20(1) permits the Minister to exempt all students, or students of a specified kind, from student contributions and tuition fees for specified courses or types of courses.[viii] This permits targeted fee-free study within the existing statutory framework. A broader model, though, would also need to address the revenue universities would lose when student contributions are removed.
Student contributions form part of university teaching revenue. Removing them without replacement funding would transfer the cost from students while creating a funding gap for providers. If replacement funding were delivered through the CGS, Parliament would need to increase the Commonwealth contribution amounts governing funded places. Alternatively, the Commonwealth would require another lawful mechanism to replace the foregone revenue.[ix] The reform therefore has two components: removing student contributions and replacing the resulting university revenue. The more difficult policy question is whether universal fee abolition is the most effective use of that additional public expenditure.
There is a substantial case for reducing student costs. The Australian Universities Accord Final Report (‘Accord’) concluded that Australia will require significant growth in tertiary participation and projected that Commonwealth supported university students would need to increase from about 860,000 in 2022 to 1.8 million by 2050 to meet its proposed attainment targets. Yet access remains unequal. The Accord recorded that people from low socio-economic status backgrounds comprised 25 per cent of the population but only 17 per cent of higher education enrolments.[x] Therefore, meeting the target partially depends on increasing participation among groups that remain under-represented in higher education. Four considerations suggest that universal free tuition alone would not achieve that objective.
First, financial barriers affect under-represented students disproportionately; however, tuition is only one source of that pressure. The Accord found that HELP removes upfront tuition costs to a considerable degree, but it does not remove the financial pressure of studying. In 2015, 34.7% of young people from the lowest socio-economic status (SES) quartile identified financial difficulty as a barrier to further study, compared with 22% from the highest quartile.[xi] Among undergraduate students who had seriously considered leaving university in 2022, financial difficulty was cited by 27.7% of low SES students, compared with 17.4% of high SES students. Both First Nations and regional and remote students also reported financial difficulty at higher rates than their respective comparison groups.[xii] These figures exemplify that financial pressure affects both entry and continuation in university. The source of financial pressure, however, extends beyond the tuition contribution itself.
Second, students must meet substantial expenses while they are enrolled. A survey of 14,880 students at a large Australian university found that about two-thirds of local students were engaged in paid employment, yet around one-third reported financial difficulty. Among local students who had considered leaving their course, one in five identified paid-work responsibilities or the need to undertake paid work as a reason.[xiii] HECS-HELP permits tuition contributions to be deferred, whereas rent, food, transport and other expenses must be met during study. Removing student contributions would reduce future debt, but it would not reduce the hours a student must work to meet those expenses. This suggests that fee abolition may remove one financial burden without addressing others that directly affect participation and completion, a limitation also reflected in Australia’s earlier experience with free tuition.
Third, Australia’s previous experience indicates that fee abolition alone does not eliminate participation gaps. Research examining the period following the 1974 abolition of fees found that higher-status groups remained consistently over-represented, particularly in established universities and professional disciplines.[xiv] It also concluded that cost was not a significant disincentive on its own, identifying university places, accessibility, academic achievement and student aspirations as interconnected influences on participation.[xv] If universal fee abolition does not by itself substantially change who participates, the question then becomes whether transferring the entire cost to public expenditure is the most effective allocation of additional funding.
Finally, universal free tuition raises a distributional question. Higher education produces public benefits through skills, productivity, and research, but graduates may also receive private benefits through employment opportunities and higher lifetime earnings. The Accord accordingly favoured a balance between student and Commonwealth contributions and recommended that student contributions move towards projected future earnings.[xvi] Universal free tuition would instead transfer the entire student-funded share to public expenditure. Taken together, these considerations support directing additional funding towards the students and financial barriers most closely associated with under-participation, rather than removing student contributions universally.
A stronger approach would link fee-free study directly to the participation problem that the reform addresses. Rather than abolishing student contributions universally, the Commonwealth would direct fee-free CSPs towards groups with persistent under-participation and, where separately justified, courses linked to identified national skills needs. The existing exemption power in s 169-20(1) of HESA provides a statutory basis for this approach, while replacement Commonwealth funding would preserve university revenue.[xvii] Eligibility would be based on demonstrated under-participation. Enrolment, retention, and completion rates would then assess whether removing tuition costs had improved participation among the targeted groups.
Targeted fee-free study should operate alongside student income support directed at the costs of remaining enrolled. The Accord recommended improving access to income support for students who need it most, reflecting that tuition relief does not cover expenses incurred while studying.[xviii]
Australia therefore has the legal architecture to make university tuition-free. The harder issue is deciding where public funding would do the most good. Universal fee abolition would remove student contributions, but it would not remove the financial pressures that keep some students out of higher education. Targeted fee-free study, replacement Commonwealth funding, and stronger living-cost support would more directly connect the legal reform to its purpose: expanding access without treating tuition as the only obstacle.
──────────────────────────────────────────
References
[i] ‘Student Contribution Amounts’, Study Assist (Web Page, 2 January 2026) <https://www.studyassist.gov.au/financial-and-study-support/commonwealth-supported-places/student-contribution-amounts>; Department of Education, Indexed Rates – Amounts for 2026 (Report, June 2025) 1 <https://www.education.gov.au/higher-education-loan-program/resources/2026-indexed-rates>.
[ii] ‘Accord 2024–25 Budget and MYEFO Measures’, Department of Education (Web Page) <https://www.education.gov.au/australian-universities-accord/accord-202425-budget-and-myefo-measures>.
[iii] ‘Education’, Whitlam Institute (Web Page) <https://www.whitlam.org/whitlam-legacy-education>.
[iv] Higher Education Funding Act 1988 (Cth); Carol Ey, ‘The Higher Education Loan Program (HELP) and Related Loans: A Chronology’ (Research Paper, Parliamentary Library, Parliament of Australia, 23 March 2021) <https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_departments/Parliamentary_Library/Research/Chronologies/2020-21/HigherEducation>.
[v] Carol Ey, ‘Higher Education Loan Program (HELP) and Other Student Loans: A Quick Guide’ (Quick Guide, Parliamentary Library, Parliament of Australia, 1 March 2023) <https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_departments/Parliamentary_Library/Research/Quick_Guides/2022-23/Higher_Education_Loan_Program>.
[vi] Higher Education Support Act 2003 (Cth) pts 2-2, 3-2 (‘HESA’).
[vii] Ibid ss 19-87, 33-1, 33-5, 33-10, 36-45, 93-1, 96-1.
[viii] Ibid ss 169-20(1).
[ix] Ibid ss 33-5, 33-10.
[x] Australian Universities Accord Final Report (Report, February 2024) 2 (‘Accord’) <https://www.education.gov.au/australian-universities-accord/resources/final-report>.
[xi] Ibid 140–2.
[xii] Ibid 141–2.
[xiii] Lena Sanci et al, ‘Towards a Health Promoting University: Descriptive Findings on Health, Wellbeing and Academic Performance amongst University Students in Australia’ (2022) 22 BMC Public Health 2430.
[xiv] Trevor Gale and Deborah Tranter, ‘Social Justice in Australian Higher Education Policy: An Historical and Conceptual Account of Student Participation’ (2011) 52(1) Critical Studies in Education 29, 35.
[xv] Ibid 35.
[xvi] Accord (n 10) 284–8.
[xvii] HESA (n 6) s 169-20(1).
[xviii] Accord (n 10) 140–3, 150.
[i] ‘Student Contribution Amounts’, Study Assist (Web Page, 2 January 2026) <https://www.studyassist.gov.au/financial-and-study-support/commonwealth-supported-places/student-contribution-amounts>; Department of Education, Indexed Rates – Amounts for 2026 (Report, June 2025) 1 <https://www.education.gov.au/higher-education-loan-program/resources/2026-indexed-rates>.
[ii] ‘Accord 2024–25 Budget and MYEFO Measures’, Department of Education (Web Page) <https://www.education.gov.au/australian-universities-accord/accord-202425-budget-and-myefo-measures>.
[iii] ‘Education’, Whitlam Institute (Web Page) <https://www.whitlam.org/whitlam-legacy-education>.
[iv] Higher Education Funding Act 1988 (Cth); Carol Ey, ‘The Higher Education Loan Program (HELP) and Related Loans: A Chronology’ (Research Paper, Parliamentary Library, Parliament of Australia, 23 March 2021) <https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_departments/Parliamentary_Library/Research/Chronologies/2020-21/HigherEducation>.
[v] Carol Ey, ‘Higher Education Loan Program (HELP) and Other Student Loans: A Quick Guide’ (Quick Guide, Parliamentary Library, Parliament of Australia, 1 March 2023) <https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_departments/Parliamentary_Library/Research/Quick_Guides/2022-23/Higher_Education_Loan_Program>.
[vi] Higher Education Support Act 2003 (Cth) pts 2-2, 3-2 (‘HESA’).
[vii] Ibid ss 19-87, 33-1, 33-5, 33-10, 36-45, 93-1, 96-1.
[viii] Ibid ss 169-20(1).
[ix] Ibid ss 33-5, 33-10.
[x] Australian Universities Accord Final Report (Report, February 2024) 2 (‘Accord’) <https://www.education.gov.au/australian-universities-accord/resources/final-report>.
[xi] Ibid 140–2.
[xii] Ibid 141–2.
[xiii] Lena Sanci et al, ‘Towards a Health Promoting University: Descriptive Findings on Health, Wellbeing and Academic Performance amongst University Students in Australia’ (2022) 22 BMC Public Health 2430.
[xiv] Trevor Gale and Deborah Tranter, ‘Social Justice in Australian Higher Education Policy: An Historical and Conceptual Account of Student Participation’ (2011) 52(1) Critical Studies in Education 29, 35.
[xv] Ibid 35.
[xvi] Accord (n 10) 284–8.
[xvii] HESA (n 6) s 169-20(1).
[xviii] Accord (n 10) 140–3, 150.
[i] ‘Student Contribution Amounts’, Study Assist (Web Page, 2 January 2026) <https://www.studyassist.gov.au/financial-and-study-support/commonwealth-supported-places/student-contribution-amounts>; Department of Education, Indexed Rates – Amounts for 2026 (Report, June 2025) 1 <https://www.education.gov.au/higher-education-loan-program/resources/2026-indexed-rates>.
[ii] ‘Accord 2024–25 Budget and MYEFO Measures’, Department of Education (Web Page) <https://www.education.gov.au/australian-universities-accord/accord-202425-budget-and-myefo-measures>.
[iii] ‘Education’, Whitlam Institute (Web Page) <https://www.whitlam.org/whitlam-legacy-education>.
[iv] Higher Education Funding Act 1988 (Cth); Carol Ey, ‘The Higher Education Loan Program (HELP) and Related Loans: A Chronology’ (Research Paper, Parliamentary Library, Parliament of Australia, 23 March 2021) <https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_departments/Parliamentary_Library/Research/Chronologies/2020-21/HigherEducation>.
[v] Carol Ey, ‘Higher Education Loan Program (HELP) and Other Student Loans: A Quick Guide’ (Quick Guide, Parliamentary Library, Parliament of Australia, 1 March 2023) <https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_departments/Parliamentary_Library/Research/Quick_Guides/2022-23/Higher_Education_Loan_Program>.
[vi] Higher Education Support Act 2003 (Cth) pts 2-2, 3-2 (‘HESA’).
[vii] Ibid ss 19-87, 33-1, 33-5, 33-10, 36-45, 93-1, 96-1.
[viii] Ibid ss 169-20(1).
[ix] Ibid ss 33-5, 33-10.
[x] Australian Universities Accord Final Report (Report, February 2024) 2 (‘Accord’) <https://www.education.gov.au/australian-universities-accord/resources/final-report>.
[xi] Ibid 140–2.
[xii] Ibid 141–2.
[xiii] Lena Sanci et al, ‘Towards a Health Promoting University: Descriptive Findings on Health, Wellbeing and Academic Performance amongst University Students in Australia’ (2022) 22 BMC Public Health 2430.
[xiv] Trevor Gale and Deborah Tranter, ‘Social Justice in Australian Higher Education Policy: An Historical and Conceptual Account of Student Participation’ (2011) 52(1) Critical Studies in Education 29, 35.
[xv] Ibid 35.
[xvi] Accord (n 10) 284–8.
[xvii] HESA (n 6) s 169-20(1).
[xviii] Accord (n 10) 140–3, 150.