Australian universities face a resumption of the tuition fee deregulation debate when the ¡°dust settles¡± from the coronavirus pandemic, according to some sector strategists and consultants.

Research strategist Thomas Barlow said that with revenue collapsing ¡°at least temporarily¡±, some form of fee deregulation ¨C last proposed by in 2014 by Christopher Pyne, who was then education minister, and twice blocked by the Senate ¨C would be ¡°back on the table¡±.

¡°[It] would provide universities with a mechanism so they can operate,¡± he said. ¡°It?makes sense to reopen the conversation and think a?bit differently about the implications for access.¡±

Dr Barlow said the key argument against deregulation was that it priced the poor out of university. ¡°But 40?per cent of the population goes to university anyway. Deregulation may afford a mechanism for using the fees, from people [able] or willing to pay more, to help subsidise the education of those unable to pay at higher rates.¡±

ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø

Limits on fees would be needed to protect students and stop loan costs spiralling out of control, he said. ¡°You don¡¯t want the government underwriting a loan scheme where prices are completely deregulated.¡±

But a carefully designed approach might attract political support by sidestepping the ¡°tension between a wealthy elite and the deprived masses¡±, he argued.

ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø

Stephen Parker, national education sector leader with consultants KPMG Australia, said he would support consideration of tuition fee deregulation as ¡°part of a rebuilding strategy¡±.

¡°It should at least be looked at,¡± he said. ¡°But it can have huge reverberations. There could be universities that just aren¡¯t viable under that arrangement.¡±

Professor Parker was Australia¡¯s only vice-chancellor to publicly oppose the 2014 deregulation proposal when he headed the University of Canberra. He said the idea had been a ¡°rush of blood¡± that would have given universities a ¡°sugar hit¡± but spawned long-term disaster.

¡°It came from nowhere and wasn¡¯t thought through. It would have led to higher fee and debt levels and lifted inflation,¡± he argued.

ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø

Professor Parker said that if fee deregulation were revisited, there would be questions over students¡¯ tolerance for debt. ¡°Those old days of university at whatever cost, we¡¯ll pay it back ma?ana ¨C that¡¯s gone,¡± he added.

¡°Times have changed. You may find that universities can¡¯t even command [current] fee levels. Value for money and debt aversion ¨C the pincer movement of those two social forces could lead to real change.¡±

Professor Parker said there was also a need to revisit the ¡°bloated cost bases¡± of a sector where academic staff constituted less than 45?per cent of the workforce. Universities would need to jettison their ¡°administrative intermediaries¡±, harnessing self-service, outsourcing, automation and machine intelligence to improve administration and reduce costs, he added.

¡°I don¡¯t see why a university shouldn¡¯t aim to have no administrators at all,¡± he said. ¡°Core human resources, finance?¨C [these are] business processes which just cost too much money in universities, because of the way they do things.

ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø

¡°And there¡¯s no reason why an academic shouldn¡¯t share an office. They don¡¯t need all their books. No?one ever looks at them.¡±

Dr Barlow said: ¡°It¡¯s hard to even imagine what things are going to look like in two years.

ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø

¡°But by thinking about what could happen, it will help?[universities]?position themselves in dealing with policymakers when things return to something more like normal.¡±

john.ross@timeshighereducation.com