Professor The Honourable Bill Shorten delivered the 2026 UC Aitkin Lecture at the National Press Club Australia.
11 March 2026
Acknowledgements
Thanks, Michelle. And thank you Aunty Violet.
I too acknowledge that we meet on the lands of the Ngunnawal people and pay my respects to elders past and present. And extend that respect to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people here tonight.
Thank you to the members of the Aitkin family – Susan and Lesley Aitkin and Jesse Newton – for being here to help us pay tribute to the legacy of the University of Canberra’s longest-serving Vice-Chancellor, your father and grandfather, Professor Don Aitkin.
I have felt the weight of expectation as I have taken on the role Professor Aitkin carried out with such wisdom, intellect and compassion.
And I thank Julia Horne for representing the family of Donald Horne, who was so much more than author of The Lucky Country.
He helped middle class Australians see this country and themselves in a new light.
We need to see things in a new light right now.
So much is disruptive, dissonate. We need so many of our ideas people to be our words.
That is what Donald Horne did.
…and his name, his legacy will be associated with the Vice-Chancellor’s Centre of Public Ideas that we launch tonight. The inaugural Director of the Centre, Professor Frank Bongiorno who is here tonight, has taken up the Donald Horne Professorship.
I also acknowledge:
- UC Chancellor, Lisa Paul (and Council Members)
- Professor Ian Chubb (former ANU Vice-Chancellor and former Australian Chief Scientist).
- Professorial fellow, Michelle Grattan, and Professor Chris Wallace (Centre of Public Ideas)
- UC Adjunct Professor, Virginia Hauseger, who will moderate the discussion to follow.
And we welcome some of my former Parliamentary colleagues who have joined us from up on the Hill:
- the Hon Julian Hill (Assistant Minister for International Education)
- Julian Leeser (Shadow Minister for Education)
- The Hon Andrew Leigh (Assistant Minister for Productivity, Competition, Charities and Treasury)
- Lisa Chesters (Chair of Joint Standing Committee on Treaties)
Introduction
In preparing my UC Aitkin lecture, I wanted to honour my predecessor by questioning – ‘how does a modern university serve Australia?’.
In the pages of Professor Don Aitkin’s book ‘What was it all for? The Reshaping of Australia’…
…this longest serving Vice-Chancellor of the University of Canberra, political scientist, historian and writer…
…gives insights into how Australian education changed from the middle of the 20th century.
In recounting the experiences of his Armidale High Class of ’53…
…Professor Aitkin looked at how the culture changed after the Second World War – the urgent need for a highly skilled workforce; immigrants wanting better for their children; an increasing margin for skill in salaries and conditions…
…all resulting in a higher education boom in the 1960s.
By century’s end, Professor Aitkin wrote, the quantum of human knowledge increased at least 50 times.
Don Aitkin and his classmates who went on to university were among just 29,000 students enrolled in university in Australia in 1954. Only around 10% finished school.
But one message struck me in Professor’s Aitkin’s writing – those who went on to uni were not the most ‘intelligent’ of his cohort.
They were the most ‘encouraged’ – by parents who knew the value of education and had the means to send their child to university.
Observations of a former politician
And today, UC and I remain committed to access to tertiary education not based narrowly on connection and wealth and genetic lottery.
Tonight, I share my observations of the higher education sector over my first year as Vice-Chancellor of the University of Canberra.
As a former Parliamentarian who now happily resides in the world of higher ed, one of the most refreshing things I’ve found about universities is the long-term thinking of academics…
…a contrast to the short-termism of media cycles and polls.
Universities are driven by the data and the evidence and the longitudinal studies.
Yet, somewhat unusually, when you ask universities about politics, they retreat to a short-term analysis.
I call it learned helplessness about the way politics operates in this country.
Unis want politicians to put themselves in their shoes…
…but sometimes aren't very good at putting themselves in the shoes of the politicians.
Universities seem suspicious of politicians and politicians seem suspicious of universities.
We want our politicians to think long term, to see around corners.
But the university sector also needs a 20 and 30 year mindset applied to our decisions…
…to create a long-term national vison that can be comprehend by politicians and the community.
I see my contribution here as making the linkages; trying to help each to understand the other.
Tonight is my journeyman's attempt to translate that and give context to why universities and government should be working more closely together.
Four common pressures
From my understanding of the environment, there are four pressures on the system.
One, the world is getting more complicated as we become further entrenched in a polycrisis…
… climate change, an AI and digital revolution, pandemics, wards, a fraying of social cohesion, rejection of scientific truth and declining trust in liberal democracy.
The second pressure is how rapidly technology is changing – what more can you say than AI, AI, AI!
The third pressure is demographics. Universities are no longer populated by well prepared, academically high achieving, largely private and selective school leavers from supportive environments with social capital. Students are increasingly diverse in background, life experience and preparation, most need to work, and all expect flexibility, and tech-enabled environments.
Four, the sector has external funding and internal structural problems that drag upon the excellence and focus that this moment demands.
One, two and three speak for themselves.
It is the fourth problem that I shall concentrate upon tonight.
I have learned that the university sector is not monolithic.
It is a paradox.
Some universities declare surpluses, others battle deficits.
We laud the fact that we produce 3% of the world's knowledge from 0.3% of the global population…
…but then complain we haven't got enough money…
…meanwhile, young people are saddled with the debt of attaining a quality education.
Our collective failing to meet the moment is failing students, failing society, and failing our nation…
…so I shall propose a possible new deal with two elements
- New sustainable funding for tertiary funding
- Greater university efficiency
…a novel solution that might upset some but one which, I hope, will start a necessary conversation.
Historical context
Let me start with some historical context.
The University of Canberra is home to the Australian National Museum of Education. This is an important collection of text books and ephemera that traces Australia’s education system since European settlement.
The English, Scots and Irish were not the first educators on these shores. Those who had been here for 60,000 years before them, passed their knowledge down through the generations orally and through art and ceremony.
The museums of ancient Indigenous Australians can be found in the archaeology, the anthropology and the deep connections shared with us by elders and now recorded for posterity.
What the Museum shows is that education is constantly evolving.
Modern universities have to embrace that concept of constant change; to anticipate change…
…because they are as central to Australia’s future as they have been to human progress since the first continually-operating and degree-awarding institution was established in 859, in Morocco.
Our modern universities are based on those which emerged in Medieval times.
But ancient or modern…
…steeped in religion, philosophy, the sciences or the arts…
…universities have had a liberating effect on those who study.
Liberation that comes with the ability to think critically; freedom from limitations placed on them by economic status or place of birth.
Universities were partners in the commercial revolution of the 11th to 15th century.
Universities like Bologna, Paris and Oxford had a broad remit, teaching liberal arts, medicine, theology as well as the contract law that would support trade.
Towards the end of the industrial revolution, 19th century universities particularly in Germany, moved towards research and technical education in areas like engineering, chemistry and business management to meet the needs of large-scale industry.
There was also a shift to a new kind of education where students were trained in specific fields.
The 20th century institutions saw the tech revolution and became more innovative and entrepreneurial, perhaps best illustrated by their role in the rise of Silicon Valley.
Today, the move to online, accelerated by the pandemic, is a defining feature of Australian universities.
Along with the internet, AI and Google, learning has been democratised to an extent, with student demands for more tailored and self-paced delivery of their education.
But the abundance of, and access to, knowledge has also seen teaching move to facilitated learning and away from an emphasis on transmission of content to encouraging active, collaborative learners, critical thinking and “human skills”.
And AI is not going away. Our job, as universities, is to teach digital literacy to students and staff to ensure AI’s safe, fair, effective and ethical application.
And as we navigate the AI revolution, universities are, once again, central to the prosperity, indeed sovereignty, of our nation.
A political cul de sac
Just as we must have the conversation about the 40-year decline in respect for universities under both sides of politics…
…which has stranded the sector in a political cul de sac of sorts.
The horseshoe theory of left and right converging on a topic seems to have become a reality – and beating up on universities is one manifestation of it.
Different reasons but same result.
We must find a way through the partisanship.
We must find a way to make Australia fall in love with universities again…
…the way they did during World War II when advisors to the Curtin government declared we had to give up ‘our addiction to the plough’ and build ‘a rampart of scientific research and knowledge by widening participation in higher education’.
It was a time, as President of the Australian Academy of the Humanities, Stephen Garton, recently wrote, when universities mattered.
When universities were called upon to ‘midwife’ change.
And now, Garton argues, as we again face major transformation, governments should be ‘mobilising and investing in university education and research’ to drive and manage those changes.
Universities stand willing and able to ‘midwife’ the next round of changes.
We have an Education Minister in the Hon Jason Clare, who is invested in our sector and in working with us to ensure its success.
But, the higher education sector has to shed its sense of victimhood.
The nation has not got time to waste as universities and government meet in an atmosphere of mutual grievance.
Too often politicians think universities just want more money and too often unis think politicians don’t understand the many marvellous things universities do.
The challenge is for universities not to ask what government can do for them, but rather explain what universities can do for the people.
When your university goes to Ministers with a major challenge, make sure you also go with potential solutions.
And ensure the solutions are grounded, implementable, challenging, emotional – not another packet of band-aids on top of the multiple packets already on top of a suppurating ulcer we choose not to fix.
This is more than just a PR problem.
When did Australia fall out of love with us?
The higher education sector’s inability to translate our worth into positive public opinion became clear during Covid and spoke to a bigger problem for universities (but may explain some of the political apathy).
The Morrison Government changed the rules for JobKeeper three times in a deliberate action to exclude universities from being able to keep staff on their books.
As a result, around 40,000 staff lost their livelihoods.
The public reaction should have been outrage.
Instead, deafening indifference.
The community simply didn’t care.
And if something that catastrophic happens to a sector that fuels our economy and helps individuals fulfil their career dreams without it causing a ripple…
…the zeitgeist radar tells politicians they will not win or lose marginal seats over their attitude towards the sector.
In part, because the 6 million graduates in Australia don’t even have a deep loyalty to their alma mater. (Maybe it’s time to start a college football league)
And universities don’t have a great deal of loyalty to each other.
The fragmentation of the sector needs to be addressed.
Since Dawkins, the term used was unified national system – supposedly a common system to serve various goals…
…but never has.
Incentives for universities to act as individual profit-making businesses should be discouraged so they stop competing as if they are multinationals.
The incentive is to deliver low cost, high profit, high volume courses, regardless of national priorities…
…regardless of what an institution’s local region needs.
Education has become a commercial product and unis the supermarkets, in some people’s minds.
A better policy instrument to encourage universities to act in system-wide ways…
…rather than simply as individual businesses competing against one another…
…may encourage a unified tertiary sector.
There is hope that ATEC, using compacts, needs-based funding and managed growth, will guide more system-wide behaviour that dilutes, if not completely dissolves, the current ‘Hunger games’ style of competition for students and research funding.
I take this opportunity to mention the work being done by the Acting Interim Chief Commissioner, Professor Barney Glover; Acting interim Commissioner, the Hon Fiona Nash; and Acting interim First Nations Commissioner and former Chancellor of UC, Professor Tom Calma.
UC looks forward to working with ATEC.
Threat to our sovereignty and wellbeing
The university sector knows there are problems.
The risk to our social licence to operate is real.
The higher education sector has to accept that if is worth fixing (it is), then we have to work together to find a way to be more efficient, more effective.
Funding and structural issues, and declining private and public sector support have collided with a greater need than ever for universities to contribute to national sovereignty.
I don’t just mean as it relates to national security and defence…
…but the social and economic well-being of Australia. Education is a pillar of national sovereignty as important as defence.
Our national sovereignty depends upon economic resilience, the complexity of our economy, productivity…
…the drivers of which are a higher education system that offers high-quality, up-to-date, industry-relevant education.
And yet, the strained 40 year old funding model of our higher education system undermines our national sovereignty and compounds our cost-of-living crisis.
Simply put, we hamper the future of our young not just by the fact they cannot afford a house but even to obtain a modest education which now costs a great deal, trapping young people in a vicious cycle.
The accumulation of student debt is a very unstable foundation for Australia’s economic sovereignty.
Our system needs fundamental rethinking.
If a particular skill – teaching STEM, artificial intelligence, or trauma-informed healthcare for example – is deemed a national priority, then the nation should share the risk of developing it.
Why has it fallen so heavily on the individual on the backs of the next generation, and the ones after that?
There must be a broader recognition of who benefits when our young people seek to start, and adults seek to return, to university.
It is the best lever for productivity that a sovereign nation can directly control yet we seek to individualise the costs to the next generation and the ones after…
….and have done so for the best part of 40 years.
Why do we presume that the only Australians who benefit from the education system are those who progress through it?
Sure, many might have greater life-time earnings than the median, but Australia is better for each and every Australian because of the talented, highly educated and skilled amongst us.
You don’t need a university degree to visit a doctor, or a pharmacist, or an accountant, or to be taught…
…but your lot is improved by them having the knowledge and world class research base to help you.
University based research has led to scientific breakthroughs and innovations that improve productivity and quality of life for all Australians…
…as well as creative works that capture and preserve our uniquely Australian culture and heritage.
Those four pressures on the system – our complicated world, the tech revolution, demographics and external funding and internal structural challenges...
…are presenting the biggest challenge to higher education in two generations.
Funding and efficiency
The underwriting of the higher education system has moved from a situation in 1990 where the government would pay 90% of a student’s course to now, on average, below 50%.
It is true that HECS could fund the system, were it quite a bit bigger, to support a modern world class tertiary system.
The Scheme of borrow-now-pay-later has meant those whose skills all Australians need, end up paying for the privilege of acquiring them.
Because for four decades we have witnessed a slow motion transfer of the financial burden of education from government to students….
…universities have sought alternative revenue from international education.
Compounding the burden of education costs on young people, have been cost-of-living pressures, and distortions in our housing and tax system which have created intergenerational inequity.
And while I acknowledge that the Albanese Government reduced HECS debt by 20%, it only delays the inevitable.
Contributing to this perfect storm has been the rancorous debate about immigration levels which threatens to contaminate Australia’s fourth best export industry of international education.
On one hand it is easy to understand, superficially, some of the resentment towards the big universities…
…who are perceived to be commodifying education to extract profits from international students.
But that ignores the economic signal that successive governments have sent tertiary institutions…
… that if universities want more funding to replace what they expect to receive from government …
…and if they are to meet TEQSA requirements to produce above world class research in a minimum of 50% of the areas in which they teach…
…they should rely on the morphine drip of international student revenue to dull the funding pain of declining investment.
This papers over the deficit in domestic funding and Australia’s poor investment in Research and Development as a percentage of GDP…
In order to maintain the quality of education provided, fund innovation and produce high quality research, universities have had to rely on income from international students. International student fees are effectively cross subsidising the education of Australian students.
And whether or not you accept the Harvard Kennedy School’s Economic Complexity Index that suggests this lack of national investment puts Australia in the ‘quarry without a forge’ category…
The fact is, it leaves a hole in university research budgets.
As international student numbers come under increasing political pressure as one of the few levers available for immigration policy…
…a reliance on international student revenue as a kind of magic bullet for funding is not a sustainable strategy.
A 40 year old funding model
Add to this reality that university cost structures are predicated on students being full time.
We have fixed costs – staffing bills at the University of Canberra, for example, are 61% of total outlay…
…and have to maintain a full-time structure while more students study part-time.
The consequence of this is when numbers fall in some disciplines – languages and geology for example – they can't be kept alive because of a tired funding model.
And the irony is, universities don’t make money from teaching and research, but from international students, property, and philanthropy…
…it all helps run libraries, IT systems, student wellbeing services, learning support services, security, building and grounds maintenance, software licensing, laboratory equipment, teaching equipment…and the list goes on.
Australia is trying to run an educational ecosystem that describes the Australian economy of 40 years ago.
Strong democratic systems contribute to national sovereignty. In turn, improved Intergenerational equity and opportunity contribute to the democratic system.
A sustainably funded tertiary education system is a precondition for international excellence competitiveness productivity and resilience.
This heavily buffered, no-upfront-cost HECS has been made to do the heavy lifting, and now falters in its current form…
…shifting funding from 'the public' to the individual.
The premise of the scheme was that graduates, all things being equal, would receive lifetime advantages in terms of their careers and earnings.
It represented about 20 per cent of the cost of the study.
Under changes that started during the 1990s, we began leaving that world behind.
Job-ready Graduates finished it off entirely.
And it has not had the desired effect of pushing students, at scale, towards the sciences where enrolments have dropped…
…while enrolments in the expensive Arts degrees have risen.
Some student debts are ballooning simply because of the interest being accrued - this particularly disadvantages women who take parental leave or work fewer hours while caring for others - their capacity to repay is reduced but the interest and debt keep growing.
How do we fix the system?
A reset is needed
We have a tremendous opportunity to become an effective, efficient, successful country.
But we need a reset.
A rebalancing between the burden on students and on stakeholders – taxpayers, the community, government and industry.
The Australian Government has told us that we will need greater proportions of students to undertake tertiary education…
…with a target of 80% with a VET qualification or tertiary degree by 2050.
A fact of which UC is very proud because it plays a role in breaking through intergenerational inequity…
…with some 40% of our students first in family to go to uni.
But the 80% target, the 40% first in family, does not address the fact that while we can promise to liberate the mind with a quality education…
…we can’t promise liberation from financial burden that comes with a quality education.
A 20 and 30 year future mindset is imperative and tonight I want to suggest just that.
First element of the deal – Sovereign Wealth Education Fund
I said earlier I want to propose a deal with two elements.
The first is to address external funding through the creation of a Sovereign Wealth Education Fund.
You may say that’s not new. A future fund was in the Accord final report and considered a controversial proposal.
Where my proposal differs is that it will not add to the national debt and it will not come from international student fees or business ventures of universities.
The money would come from those who benefit most from a highly skilled, well-educated population – businesses and corporations.gov
The money would come from a 1% levy on profits…
…and should be administered jointly by government, industry and universities for agreed national priorities.
Some initial calculations tell us this would raise approximately $5.2 billion each year.
The shining example of how this can work is the Norwegian sovereign wealth fund…
…a decision taken 50 years ago by a government minister who decided Norway’s North Sea oil resources would not be squandered.
The Norwegian Government took a future focused, not a short-term view.
A Sovereign Wealth Education Fund is about a country investing in some of its citizens so that all of its citizens benefit from their skills and knowledge in a febrile, unpredictable world.
We could do this here in Australia with one prerequisite – that the left and the right meet in the middle.
Where we get big thinking from big thinkers who care about Australia and not partisanship.
Second element of deal - mutual obligation
If universities are asking for a different funding model, we must step up and make changes too.
This is where the second element comes in to the deal – mutual obligation
That doesn’t mean a sea of red tape and reporting.
But if universities request changes in the funding model, higher education must address the efficiency of how we educate.
More of the same is not an option.
This is a painful pill for people in higher education to swallow but unless we admit that some of our methods of education need modernising…
…and some of what we do is inefficient, then universities can’t build a solid case for more funding.
One of the biggest inefficiencies in education is the assumption that the student knows nothing when they start a uni degree.
We often educate people in skills they already possess…
…expending unnecessary time and resources on students as if they are a blank page.
Recognise prior learning and experience – and teach the gaps.
As we move to greater tertiary harmonisation, universities are learning from the VET sector on competency-based assessment that will support our ‘teach the gaps’ goal.
Again, I acknowledge the work of Professor Barney Glover, this time in his capacity as Jobs and Skills Australia Commissioner. Barney has been instrumental in advancing the important mission to break down the artificial barriers between VET and higher education.
The University of Canberra champions equity…
…and tertiary harmonisation is widening participation in higher education for many who thought it was out of reach.
It was pleasing to hear Minister Jason Clare’s ringing endorsement of the lead UC is taking in this area.
Of course, another efficiency would be found in mutual obligation.
Some introspection
Put plainly, unis must work differently…
…and implement targeted change.
This must be a four-pronged attack – teaching, rigorous assessment, better treatment of staff, and specialisation.
Universities know we must put our own houses in order.
That requires internal focus.
This includes:
- Greater teaching quality. By valuing teaching, or facilitated learning, as much as research, ensuring incentives are geared towards teaching excellence, including promotions and appointments. Rigorous assessment of students, especially in the brave new world that is AI.
- Teaching staff at UC have had to redesign assessment. This has seen a massive shift from the archaic regurgitation of material, to what's referred to as authentic assessment … real world tasks with the emphasis moving from knowledge recall to better judgement synthesis, and ethical reasoning.
- We need better treatment of casuals and part-time staff. This is non-negotiable.
- Specialisation. Australia’s Sovereign Wealth Education Fund could, for example, invest in the compacts being negotiated to support greater specialisation of universities … the aim of which is to focus on a better student experience and to stop treating education as a commodity.
According to OECD, we are amongst the lowest of all countries in STEM graduates and in languages, within the highest five in business and law enrolments.
But how do we ensure that 'the system' has adequate provision of Mandarin, Bahasa, Geology, Physics, Australian History, Vet Science?
Not in every university, where only a few students have those interests…
…but a mechanism to "hub and spoke'.
If you live in Rockhampton, for example, you should be able to take Italian semiotics from another university for your Rockhampton degree…
…and have it funded strategically and sustainably.
How you raise the money sustainably becomes the long-term political matter – by persuading Australians to support the vision, not buying band-aids.
Pie in the sky?
Now, I know some commentators will say my proposition is pie in the sky stuff. But I have form.
In 2008 nobody thought the NDIS was possible, but I persisted.
Now it generates nearly 2% of GDP…
…helps 700,000 Australians with disability and their families… …and employs more than half a million Australians in the care economy.
It sits alongside Medicare as one of the great social policies of Australia’s history.
And as changes to negative gearing and the Capital Gains discount are again being considered I realise some of my ideas were just ahead of their time.
When I was a union organiser, there was an old shearer I met who said ‘it’s a big wheel that doesn’t turn’.
Sooner or later, the wheel does turn.
So, I speak of the Sovereign Wealth Education Fund with a good well of optimism for what is possible.
And I speak on this for the students, and for the national interest, not seeking a handout for universities.
And I speak as someone who came to the University of Canberra with fresh eyes that marvelled at what this institution does.
If you go to a hospital in Canberra, chances are your nurse is UC trained.
If your child goes to school in Canberra, chances are their teacher was UC trained.
The UC News and Media Research Centre is combatting misinformation.
A UC-led research team brought rare frogs back from near extinction.
[BGL example]
Dissent
I should add there is one other, pressing aspect of the university landscape that it is beholden upon us to fix, and that is in handling dissent.
Grappling with how to manage conflict within our student cohort is occupying the minds of many university executive.
How do we move away from the current state of debate which is polarised and binary?
Where a person who disagrees with you becomes your enemy?
We may blame the rise of the anonymous keyboard warrior spilling over into real life.
It may be the performative nature of some (not all) politicians and some (not all) media commentators.
Or it could be that our lives are set against the backdrop of a burning world.
Whatever the reason, we have resorted to tribalism which is counter to the social cohesion to which Australia aspires.
COPI
This is the type of vexed issue The Vice-Chancellor’s Centre of Public Ideas, that we launch tonight, is designed to tackle.
COPI, as we call it, has set sail under the expert guidance of Donald Horne Professor, Frank Bongiorno, who has taken up the inaugural director role of the Centre.
We are fortunate to have Frank’s vision, aspirations and understanding of the times past and present and how they influence the future.
The aim is for COPI to be a safe place to have an intellectual debate around hard issues.
A place where we can restore respect of diverse views.
Where we nurture acceptance that people can draw different conclusions from the same set of facts…
…and that doesn’t make them the enemy; to be vanquished, destroyed at all costs.
Frank brings peerless expertise in Australian political history, and wants public debate and policymaking in Australia to draw upon the rich context of what he calls the “historical hinterland” that helps us make sense of the present.
COPI will also be home to UC’s Pathways to Politics for Women under the skilled stewardship of Professor Chris Wallace…
… and to Professorial Fellow, Ms Michelle Grattan, who is a doyen of Australian political journalism.
I was interviewed by Michelle, over my years in Parliament, more times than I can remember.
I knew I had to be very well prepared because she knew Australian politics better than almost anyone…
…and asked some of the toughest questions I’ve ever had to answer.
Michelle’s work in The Conversation is incisive, informative and carries her trademark search for the truth.
We are beyond fortunate to have Frank, Chris and Michelle bringing their vision and experience to COPI…
…which I believe has the potential to position UC as a leading authority on Australian politics, history and society…
…contributing to and influencing national policymaking and debate.
Australia has never needed such intellectual, political and policy firepower as we do right now.
We have a tremendous opportunity to reap the rewards of being an effective, even more prosperous country – if we move first.
As we walk a fine line trying to appease our security partner, the US, and our economic partner, China.
We have to look at policy through the lens of what makes Australia better.
I’m looking forward to the discussion with Frank and Michelle and our moderator, Virginia Hauseger so we can tease out some of the matters I’ve put to you in this address.
And for my thinking, the biggest challenge yet, the one which promises the biggest reward, is moving beyond debate that is about entrenching positions on the left and right.
If we cannot reach beyond the tribalism and partisanship, we risk being led by the loudest voices who seek a more extreme path that is also devoid of constructive solutions.
Conclusion
One thing is sure.
Universities are not in Kansas anymore.
Times have changed.
The court of public opinion is ambivalent at best, hostile at worst.
Our social licence to operate is at risk if we do not rise to the challenges in front of us – and with a sense of urgency.
The time is now to bring the sector together.
To bring the left and right of politics together.
To be future focused on and what Australia needs over the next 20, 30, 40 years…
…and how universities can partner on the priorities.
We are in a period of upheaval in our higher education institutions, and it is up to us to emerge a better, stronger, more unified sector.
