Tim Winton among 100 high-profile Australians calling for university fees that don't ‘punish' arts students
It was at the Western Australian Institute of Technology, studying arts, that he wrote his first novel, An Open Swimmer, launching a four-decade writing career.
This was the 1980s, when a Labor government temporarily made higher education free to all Australians.
'Earning a humanities degree was not only life changing, in terms of opening up a world of knowledge otherwise beyond my reach, it also turns out to have been enormously productive – for me and many, many people around me,' Winton said.
'My little arts degree has created jobs and cultural value for over 40 years.'
Flash forward to 2025, and arts degrees have ballooned to cost in excess of $50,000, thanks to the Coalition's Jobs-Ready Graduate (JRG) scheme, introduced in 2021 to incentivise students into certain disciplines such as Stem (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics), education and health.
Sign up: AU Breaking News email
While strongly condemned by Labor at the time, the Albanese government has deferred any reform to tuition fees to a newly established independent tertiary commission.
Winton is among more than 100 high profile Australians who have signed an open letter by the Australian Historical Association (AHA) urging Anthony Albanese to abolish the JRG scheme and implement an equitable university fee system that 'does not punish students who choose to study the humanities and social sciences'.
'That any Australian government should seek to make getting a humanities degree more difficult is upsetting … but the idea that a Labor government would do nothing at all to right this wrong is utterly mystifying,' Winton said.
'If Labor won't act to defend equity in education, what is the point of them – I mean, what do they really stand for?'
The signatories of the letter speak to the diversity of arts degree outcomes: writers Helen Garner, Kate Grenville and Nam Le; professional cook Stephanie Alexander; former cabinet minister and representative to Unesco Barry Jones; and former Australian of the Year, scientist Tim Flannery have all signed on.
Grenville, who has authored 19 books, said her own studies in history and humanities were 'absolutely essential' to the writing of her books, many of which take place in the early years of colonisation.
'Without those opportunities to explore both widely and deeply, I would not have written the books that have now become one of the ways general readers learn about our past,' she said.
Implicit in the introduction of JRG was the assumption students would be deterred from arts courses because of their price point, and attract them to cheaper degrees for 'in-demand' courses.
But the Universities Accord report, released last year, said the JRG package had 'failed', finding only 1.5% of students applied to enrol in courses that they would not have under the prior contribution arrangements.
'The job ready graduates package needs urgent remediation,' the report said.
'It has left some students facing extremely high student contributions and large Help debts that do not reflect their future earning potential, and it has tilted the overall cost burden of higher education further on to students.'
In its place, the review recommended a student contribution system based on potential lifetime earnings – the higher the future wages, the greater the student contribution.
Higher education expert Prof Andrew Norton said ideally graduates working full-time should complete repayments within similar ranges of years, regardless of which course they took.
'That is far from what happens under the current system … many arts graduates will struggle to ever get their debt under control,' he wrote in The Conversation on Wednesday.
Convener of the letter, AHA president Prof Michelle Arrow, said four years after its implementation the effects of JRG were beginning to play out in the numbers of staff being cut in humanities disciplines across the country.
Australian National University (ANU) proposed cuts include the Humanities Research Centre, the European Studies Centre and the Australian National Dictionary Centre, as well as significant reductions in the Australian Dictionary of Biography.
'For a thriving humanities infrastructure, you need people in the community, but you also need academics,' Arrow said.
'We're going to risk losing a whole generation of academics … these kinds of job cuts will continue while these fees are in place.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
29 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Huge '$25 cap' cost of living change to help millions of Aussies pay for an everyday staple
Australians will pay no more than $25 for selected medicines for the first time in more than 20 years under a proposal to be brought before parliament. It will be the second cap on medicines on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) introduced by the Albanese government in three years, after it cut the maximum price of PBS prescriptions from $42.50 to $30. 'The size of your bank balance shouldn't determine the quality of your health care,' Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said. 'My government will continue to deliver cost-of-living relief for all Australians.' PBS medicines would be capped at $7.70 for pensioners and concession card holders until 2030. The bill's introduction is largely a formality, with its passage through the lower house all but assured thanks to Labor's massive 94-seat majority in the 150-seat House of Representatives. The election promise is the Albanese government's next priority after it introduced childcare safety and HECS debt reduction legislation. Federal Labor has been talking up plans to strengthen the PBS amid concerns the scheme will be targeted as a bargaining chip in US trade negotiations to ward off threatened pharmaceutical tariffs. Albanese has repeatedly said the scheme was not up for negotiation. Australia eased its biosecurity restrictions on US beef imports last week, but the prime minister has denied the move was linked to US trade talks. He noted the decision followed a 10-year review of Australian biosecurity rules. Beyond new legislation, conflict in the Middle East will likely prompt fierce debate on the parliamentary floor after Albanese said Israel had breached international law by blocking the flow of food aid into Gaza. 'Quite clearly, it is a breach of international law to stop food being delivered, which was a decision that Israel made in March,' Albanese told ABC's Insiders on Sunday. He stopped short of saying Australia would join France in recognising a Palestinian state, but said his government would decide at 'an appropriate time'. 'Hamas can have no role in a future state,' he said. 'Hamas are a terrorist organisation who I find, their actions are abhorrent.' Opposition foreign affairs spokeswoman Michaelia Cash said Albanese failed to adequately condemn the role of the group in the ongoing conflict. The government is also likely to come under pressure regarding transparency when parliament resumes, after a Centre for Public Integrity probe revealed only a quarter of freedom of information request responses returned by the government in 2023-24 were un-redacted. By comparison, the Morrison government returned almost half of its FOI requests as complete documents in 2021/22.
Reuters
29 minutes ago
- Reuters
EU's pledge for $250 billion of US energy imports is delusional
LAUNCESTON, Australia, July 28 (Reuters) - There are strong echoes of Donald Trump's failed trade deal with China from his first term as U.S. president in the framework agreement reached with the European Union. Trump and EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced the deal for a 15% tariff on U.S. imports of EU goods at the U.S. leader's golf course in Scotland on Sunday. But more important than the 15% tariff rate was the apparent commitment by the EU to massively ramp up energy imports from the United States. The agreement calls for EU imports of U.S. energy, which currently are mainly crude oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG), of $250 billion a year for three years. This is a delusional level of imports that the EU has virtually no chance of meeting, and one that U.S. producers would also struggle to supply. Even if the EU did manage somehow to boost its energy imports from the United States to the $250 billion a year mark, it would also prove massively disruptive for energy flows around the rest of the world. The numbers show the scale of the challenge. The 28 members of the EU imported 3.38 billion barrels of seaborne crude oil in 2024, according to data compiled by energy analysts Kpler. Assuming the 2025 volume stays the same and the price paid per barrel averages around $70, this means the EU will pay about $236.6 billion for its crude. The EU's imports from the United States were 573 million barrels in 2024, which if replicated this year would be valued at around $40.1 billion. For LNG, the EU imported 82.68 million metric tons in 2024, which would have cost around $51.26 billion assuming an average price of around $12 per million British thermal units (mmBtu). Imports of the super-chilled fuel from the United States were 35.13 million tons in 2024, worth about $21.78 billion. The EU also buys coal from the United States, the bulk being higher-value metallurgical coal used to make steel. Total EU imports of metallurgical coal in 2024 were worth $6.72 billion, assuming an average price of $200 per ton, with those from the United States valued at $2.67 billion. Putting together the value of EU imports of U.S. crude oil, LNG and metallurgical coal gives a 2024 total of around $64.55 billion. This is about 26% of the $250 billion the EU is supposed to spend on U.S. energy a year under the framework agreement. If the EU did ramp up its imports of U.S. crude, LNG and metallurgical coal to $250 billion, it would account for 85% of its total spending on those energy commodities. The United States exported 1.45 billion barrels of crude in 2024, according to Kpler, which would be worth $101.5 billion at a price of $70 a barrel. U.S. shipments of LNG were 87.05 million tons in 2024, which would be worth about $54 billion at an average price of $12 per mmBtu. The U.S. exported 51.53 million tons of metallurgical coal in 2024, worth $10.3 billion at an average price of $200 a ton. Putting together the value of all three energy commodities gives a total of $165.8 billion, meaning that even if the EU bought the entire volume it would still fall well short of the $250 billion. The scale of the delusion probably exceeds what Trump and China agreed in their so-called Phase 1 trade deal in December 2019, under which China was supposed to buy $200 billion of additional U.S. energy by the end of 2021. The reality is that China never even came close to buying that level, and its imports of U.S. energy didn't even reach what they were before Trump launched his first trade war in 2017. There are a few caveats when looking at the framework agreement between Trump and Von der Leyen. The first is that not all the details are known and the $250 billion of energy is also said to include nuclear fuel, although this will only be a small value even if included. The second is the deal will probably include refined fuels, with U.S. exports to the EU of products such as diesel, being almost 110 million barrels in 2024, worth about $10.9 billion assuming a price of $100 a barrel. But it's still clear that the commitment to buy $250 billion in U.S. energy is completely unrealistic and unachievable. The smart people in the room must know this, begging the question as to why agree to what is obviously a ridiculous number? What happens when the inevitable failure is realised? Perhaps the EU is hoping for the same outcome as China did with the first trade war with Trump in 2019. Run down the clock, talk nice, and hope the next U.S. president is easier to deal with. Enjoying this column? Check out Reuters Open Interest (ROI), your essential new source for global financial commentary. ROI delivers thought-provoking, data-driven analysis of everything from swap rates to soybeans. Markets are moving faster than ever. ROI can help you keep up. Follow ROI on LinkedIn, opens new tab and X, opens new tab. The views expressed here are those of the author, a columnist for Reuters.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
UN climate chief warns Australia not to pick a ‘bog standard' 2035 carbon emissions target
The UN's climate chief has declared Australia's 2035 emissions target will define the country's future, and urged the Albanese government to not pick a 'bog-standard' number but to 'go for what's smart by going big'. Speaking in Sydney on Monday, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change executive secretary, Simon Stiell, cast the government's decision on the target – due by September – as the country's 'one shot' to build an 'on-ramp to the Asian clean tech boom', create hundreds of thousands of jobs and ensure the country's economic security and regional influence. The government is being heavily lobbied by industry and climate-focused organisations as it waits on advice about the 2035 target from the Climate Change Authority, a government agency led by chair Matt Kean, a former NSW Liberal treasurer and energy minister. Stiell, a former minister in the Grenadian government, did not say what the target should be, but said the decision was more than 'just the next policy milestone'. He said climate policy debates could be 'complex and contentious', but urged the country to not 'settle for what's easy'. 'If those debates deliver an ambitious, all-economy plan with public backing and political backbone then, whatever the naysayers might say, every hard-fought inch will be worth it,' he said at an event hosted by the Smart Energy Council, a clean energy industry organisation. 'Bog standard is beneath you … Go for what will build lasting wealth and national security. Go for what will change the game and stand the test of time.' Sign up: AU Breaking News email The Climate Change Authority last year said a preliminary assessment of scientific, economic, technological and social evidence suggested a target of cutting national emissions by at least 65% and up to 75% by 2035 compared with 2005 levels would be ambitious but achievable. Some organisations, including the Climate Council, the Australian Council of Social Service and the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering, argue Australia should be aiming to reach net zero emissions by 2035 if it is to play its part in keeping global heating as close to 1.5C as possible – a goal enshrined in the legally binding 2015 Paris agreement. Some business groups, including mining company Fortescue, have locked behind a campaign for a minimum 75% reduction target. They face opposition from other industry lobbyists that suggest the government should set a target that would do little more than the legislated 2030 goal of a 43% cut. The Coalition is considering whether it will go further and abandon its support for reaching net zero emissions by 2050. The former Nationals leader, Barnaby Joyce, has tabled a private member's bill that would abolish nearly all of the country's climate policies and commitments, including the net zero target. Stiell said he believed Australians knew unchecked climate change was 'an economic wrecking ball', and that climate disasters were 'already costing Australian homeowners $4bn a year – and that figure is only going one way'. He cited analysis that found the country could lose $6.8tn in GDP by 2050, and living standards could fall by more than $7,000 per person a year. But he said the 'global clean energy race' was under way, with trillions of dollars at stake, and with China and India investing in renewables at a level that was 'off the charts'. He said an ambitious target in Australia could 'anchor future industries – green hydrogen, clean metals, critical minerals – in policies that give investors confidence, give communities certainty [and] create good jobs paying good wages'. He said it would send a message 'so clear the world can't miss it – this country is open for clean investment, trade and long-term partnerships'. Stiell is in Australia as part of a global trip as governments weigh new commitments for 2035 before the Cop30 climate conference in Brazil in November. He arrived in Sydney after visiting Indonesia and Turkey. Turkey is vying with Australia and the Pacific to host next year's Cop31 summit. A decision will need to be made by Cop30, at the latest. It had been expected last year, but the UN operates a consensus process and Turkey has remained in the race despite most members of the deciding group of Western Europe and Other States having declared their support for the Australia-Pacific bid. Stiell was due to visit Canberra on Tuesday for meetings, including with the climate change and energy minister, Chris Bowen. He will be joined in the capital by the prime minister of the low-lying Pacific atoll nation of Tuvalu, Feleti Teo, who is speaking at the Australian National University and meeting with the prime minister, Anthony Albanese. More than 80% of Tuvalu's population of about 11,000 have entered a ballot for an Australian permanent residency visa, established as part of a climate-related treaty between the two countries. Under the deal, 280 places will be offered to Tuvalu citizens in the first year.
