Universities are like the uncle who is reluctantly invited to the wedding reception and relegated to the back table. He’s made to feel unimportant just like universities are grudgingly mentioned during a federal election, because politicians don’t see higher education as a vote winner. But could this federal election be different? Will promises made about higher education capture younger voters?
This federal election is likely to be determined by voters under the age of 45, the very group that rising university fees and HELP (higher education loan program) debts are hitting the hardest.
Latest Australian Electoral Commission data shows that the combined cohort of Millennials and Gen Z, those born after 1981, outnumber the Baby Boomers and Australians born between the world wars. The younger cohort makes up just over 7.7 million voters while Baby Boomers and interwar voters comprise 5,871,342.
Around 18 million people are enrolled, which is about 98 per cent of all eligible Australians. This is the highest number ever, according to AEC figures. For most voters, cost of living is a top issue as borne out in multiple recent surveys. Of these Australians, about 3 million have an outstanding HELP debt. It now takes them on average almost 10 years to pay off their debt in full, and 55 per cent have a HELP debt of more than $20,000.
Labor’s promise to wipe 20 per cent of accumulated student debt might just elevate higher education as an issue in voters’ minds. In November last year Labor announced it would cut 20 per cent off HELP, VET Student Loans, Australian Apprenticeship Support Loans and other income-contingent student loan accounts. This, Labor, said would cut around $16 billion in debt and promised it would be one of the first bills introduced if it won the May 3 election.
Data suggests that a person with an average HELP debt of $27,000 would have about $5520 wiped from their outstanding loan. Those with a debt of more than $60,000 could expect more than $12,000 cut from their loan.
However, the one-off promise to wipe 20 per cent off HELP may not entice students paying the highest fees for subjects. In a previous Eureka Street article, I pointed out that students studying subjects such as history and are charged more than $2000, resulting in arts degrees costing about $50,000 depending on the subjects selected. Nevertheless, the wiping of some of the debt may be a sweetener to those who have spent years paying off their outstanding loan, particularly if it means it’s significantly reduced or wiped completely.
Housing affordability and migration are also big election issues and are being linked to higher education by both major political parties. In February, Labor promised to work with the financial regulators to make it easier for people with Help debts to obtain mortgages.
But most of the focus so far has been on the Coalition policy to cap international student numbers to ease pressure on housing. A recent ABC Insiders episode spent time dissecting the Coalition announcement and an article on international student caps was published in the Conversation.
Peter Dutton announced that it would cut new international student numbers in universities and VET by about 25 per cent resulting in 30,000 fewer students. Under the plan, there would be at most 115,000 overseas student commencements each year at public universities and at most 125,000 in the VET, private university and non-university higher education sectors. The cost of visas would also increase from $1600 to $5000 for Group of Eight international students and to $2500 for other students.
The coalition’s plan for managing overseas student numbers is heavily influenced by the belief that these students are largely responsible for hikes in rents, housing shortages, and pressure on infrastructure. It was the same justification that Labor used last year when the government wanted to introduce international student caps. The Greens and Coalition voted against the plan, although the government has been going slow on granting student visas.
The message on cutting international students has reached the electorate. During the first leaders debate at a People’s Forum in Western Sydney a father of university student asked Peter Dutton if university fees would increase as a result of the party’s plan to reduce overseas student numbers. ‘No’, he responded and criticised the government for accepting higher numbers of international students. Albanese told the audience the government wanted a ‘reasonable cap (on international student numbers) that protected the universities’.
Talkback callers have also had their say about capping overseas student numbers. Some told ABC Melbourne radio morning host Rafael Epstein that international students take university places from local students. Others suggested there were too many overseas students eventually settling in Australia. This is where linking universities to issues of migration and housing can get nasty. Both Labor and Coalition plans are in danger of playing on people’s incorrect ideas about international students (they don’t steal places from local students) and exploit xenophobic attitudes.
It’s also simplistic to blame international students for the housing crisis and studies have shown this to be the case. However, the promised plan is an easy way to capture voters, many of whom despair at ever buying a home, because of its superficial logic. The policy also deflects attention away from successive federal government inaction on housing.
Universities and schools have also been put on the election agenda by the Coalition with claims that the education curriculum is fuelled by ‘woke’ ideas and ‘ideological agendas’. At a Brisbane Sky Live Pub Test Peter Dutton suggested that funding could be amended to stymie ‘woke’ education in schools and universities. This was in response to a question about what he would do about ‘woke’ education.
‘I think there is a silent majority on this issue right across the community,’ he told the audience.
However, Dutton did not provide examples of what he meant by ‘woke’ curriculum in schools and universities. Dutton’s response echoes earlier comments by opposition education spokeswoman Sarah Henderson who has said she would direct the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency to intervene against ‘indoctrination’ in universities. This stance on so-called ‘woke’ curriculum has echoes of what US President Donald Trump has enacted. This issue isn’t going away as long as interest groups keep pushing a line calling Dutton ‘Temu Trump’.
Despite all this talk about education, neither of the major parties has talked about the funding of universities, despite two 2023 reports suggesting Australians are concerned about the issue. The Australia Institute Centre for Future Work’s paper Public Attitudes on Issues in Higher Education contains a survey showing almost three in four (74 per cent) Australians reported being concerned about the decline in government funding per student for public universities over the last 10 years. Thirty-five per cent said they were very concerned and 20 per cent reported that they were not very or not at all concerned.
An Australian National University Centre for Social Research and Methods survey on attitudes towards education also found that Australians were concerned about university funding. However, this depended largely on whether those surveyed had a university qualification. Crucially given younger people may determine this election, younger Australians aged 18 to 24 were more supportive than other age groups of additional funding for universities.
The major parties non-commitment to additional funding proves the point that higher education only gets significant attention if it can be linked to big issues such as cost of living, housing and migration. Universities on their own are just the uncle.
Dr Erica Cervini is a freelance journalist and sessional academic.