IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Alternative Approaches to Fee Flexibility: Towards a Third Way in Higher Education Reform in Australia


  • P. J. Dawkins
  • J.M. Dixon


A major issue for the future of tertiary education is to ensure that Australia continues to expand its investment in skills and capabilities, to enable a future of prosperity which is available to all. This has been the aim of the demand-driven system of higher education. The Federal Government's current proposals for higher education reform include the expansion of the demand-driven system, by bringing sub-degree higher education programs into the subsided system and by bringing non-university higher education providers into the system. At the same time the government has been seeking to achieve budget restraint and as a result proposed to cut the amount of funding per student by an average of 20 per cent, although there is considerable variation across the disciplines. The government has also proposed to uncap fees, so that universities could at least recoup the lost funds due to the cuts in subsidies. The government's proposal for full-fee deregulation in higher education has stalled in the Senate. It has been subjected to criticism from the cross-benchers and from a number of expert commentators that there are serious risks with the proposal including the risk of excessive student fees and excessive debts. We argue that what is required is not full deregulation of fees, or a return to a more regulated model with tight fee regulation and a possible reversion to more regulation of student numbers as well. What is required is a 'third way' incorporating some degree of price flexibility, and an enhanced equity package, while retaining the demand driven model. This paper, therefore, is concerned with exploring alternative ways of sustaining the demand driven system by allowing some degree of flexibility in student fees, while avoiding excessive fee rises and allowing for some degree of price competition. Consideration is also given to ways in which the equity aspects of the package could be enhanced. Dawkins (2014) argued that three alternative methods should be explored to achieve a degree of fee flexibility: fee caps, loan caps and a 'taper model' whereby government tuition subsidies are reduced according to a taper-rate schedule, when they raise fees above a threshold level. The latter concept is one that is also being proposed by Bruce Chapman (Chapman 2015). Our analysis and consideration of the policy challenge leads us to the conclusion that the most promising way forward is a two-part package incorporating a taper model whereby tuition subsidies are reduced according a progressive taper rate schedule, when fees rise above a threshold level an enhanced Higher Education Participation Program (HEPP), incorporating scholarships for all low socioeconomic status background students across the system, and additional support for interventions for reducing the attrition rates of at-risk students. Data has been provided by the Commonwealth Department of Education and Training to assist with this research and the modelling has been undertaken at the Centre of Policy Studies at Victoria University.

Suggested Citation

  • P. J. Dawkins & J.M. Dixon, 2015. "Alternative Approaches to Fee Flexibility: Towards a Third Way in Higher Education Reform in Australia," Centre of Policy Studies/IMPACT Centre Working Papers g-252, Victoria University, Centre of Policy Studies/IMPACT Centre.
  • Handle: RePEc:cop:wpaper:g-252

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    File Function: Initial version, 2015-03
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL:
    File Function: Local abstract: may link to additional material.
    Download Restriction: no

    More about this item


    higher education; taper scheme; government budget; education subsidies; HECS; deregulation;

    JEL classification:

    • I22 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education - - - Educational Finance; Financial Aid
    • I23 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education - - - Higher Education; Research Institutions
    • I28 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education - - - Government Policy
    • H52 - Public Economics - - National Government Expenditures and Related Policies - - - Government Expenditures and Education

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    Access and download statistics


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cop:wpaper:g-252. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Mark Horridge). General contact details of provider: .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.