Australian author Craig Silvey, known for his bestselling books Jasper Jones, Honeybee and Runt, has pleaded guilty to possessing and distributing child exploitation material. Two further charges were dropped, including allegations he produced child exploitation material.

Silvey is yet to be sentenced – but what we do with his books will be decided outside the court of law. Families, libraries, schools and bookshops may be struggling to know how to proceed. Is it possible to separate the art from the artist?

The recent cancellation of First Nations children’s book Bila by University of Queensland Press – scrapped because of statements made by its illustrator, not anything in the book itself – is a reminder that destroying books is always problematic.

But sitting with the discomfort of keeping Silvey’s books in circulation is genuinely hard when children have been harmed. What do we tell a young person who asks why their favourite book has disappeared from the shelf – or why it hasn’t?

A personal betrayal

A generation of Australians has grown up with Jasper Jones, a fixture on school reading lists – along with its popular stage adaptation and film. For the many who continue to feel deeply attached to the texts they study in high school, Silvey’s conviction may feel like a personal betrayal.

On TikTok, one young woman is throwing her copies of Honeybee and Jasper Jones in the bin, with the caption “one of my favourite authors … no longer”.

My own gender fluid kids are acutely aware of J.K. Rowling’s critical views on trans people. They won’t watch the new Harry Potter adaptations, but have not thrown out their books. Young people have different ways of sitting with such tensions – and that’s OK.

Parents may no longer feel comfortable keeping Silvey’s books, or may be reluctant to remove a child’s favourite book, especially amid a global downturn in children reading for pleasure. Deciding what to do together with the books could be a way to help a young person process their feelings.

Gentle, age-appropriate honesty will be important in these difficult conversations. For younger children, that might mean something simple and direct: “Craig Silvey looked at pictures and videos of children being hurt, and shared them with others. That is against the law, and it harmed real children.” No young person should be made to feel ashamed for having loved these books.

A problem with Jasper Jones

Jasper Jones (2009) sold nearly a million copies worldwide. It was voted one of ABC Radio National’s 100 Best Books of the 21st century. So was Silvey’s controversial novel about a troubled trans teenager, Honeybee (2020), winner of the 2021 Australian Indie Book Award. His award-winning illustrated novel Runt (2022) attracted a younger audience, spurning a sequel and a feature film.

In Jasper Jones, which defined Silvey’s career, 13-year-old Charlie is drawn into the aftermath of a young woman’s death by Indigenous character Jasper, who knows he will be blamed for it. Charlie helps him hide Laura’s body. In the novel’s denouement, we discover she was the victim of sexual abuse perpetrated by her own father; she died by suicide.

Jasper Jones was published in Australia as adult literary fiction. But in the United States, it was published as young adult fiction, making the American Library Association’s 2012 Best Fiction for Young Adults list. It was then repackaged as young adult in Australia.

While I don’t advocate censorship, I’ve long found the novel’s presence on school text lists troubling: Laura’s sexual abuse and death by suicide exist primarily to catalyse the growth of a young male protagonist. I have always felt the original decision to publish Jasper Jones as adult fiction – which would have driven editorial decisions, including its (bleak) ending – was correct.

Are we ‘cancelling’ Silvey?

Following Silvey’s arrest in January 2026, his Australian publishers Allen & Unwin and Fremantle Press halted promotion of his work. Major booksellers pulled his titles. Australian state education departments removed his books from curricula. The Belvoir Theatre Company announced it would indefinitely pause the stage adaptation of Runt it had scheduled for this August.

Has Silvey been “cancelled”? As acclaimed novelist Rebecca Makkai wrote about author Alice Munro, after it was revealed Munro turned a blind eye to her second husband’s abuse of her daughter, it’s not that simple.

“Canceled” implies that something, collectively, has been done to the author, rather than that individual people are making choices to relinquish, perhaps with great pain and mourning, the work of a writer they once loved. Or to relinquish some of it. Or to look at it quite differently.

You may still be able to find Silvey’s books in your local library. Libraries have collection policies to help guide decisions in situations like this. Most Australian public libraries operate under policies aligned with the Australian Library and Information Association’s free access to information principles, which explicitly resist the removal of material on moral or reputational grounds.

Unless a title is legally prohibited, a library has limited grounds to remove a book simply because its author has been convicted of an offence. To do otherwise risks setting a precedent that could lead to censorship.

That said, many librarians will likely be quietly reconsidering how prominently Silvey’s titles are displayed.

So much at stake

Months before his arrest, Silvey toured Australian schools to promote the sequel to Runt. There is no direct link between his crime and his books or public appearances – unlike the case of Sydney children’s author Oliver Phommavanh, sentenced to jail in February for sending sexually explicit messages to three underage students. (Two had contacted him after he visited their schools.)

However, Silvey’s access to children through his public standing must be unsettling for the many organisations who have hosted him. And cases like these risk unbalancing the fragile trust between schools and children’s authors.

As a children’s author myself, I once relied on school visits as a source of income and a way to connect with my readers. Most children’s authors are good, kind people, passionate about books. School visits and assigned texts by living authors can help inspire a lifelong love of reading.

Today, I’m thinking of the collaborators who were involved in producing Silvey’s books and their adaptations – and dedicated years to bringing his stories to life. I’m thinking of the parents, grandparents, booksellers, librarians and teachers who have put these books in young people’s hands. And of the children and young adults who love his books.

But most importantly, behind Silvey’s guilty plea are children who were exploited and abused. Concerns about his art, its legacy, or the shockwaves in Australian children’s literature are worth thinking about – but shouldn’t obscure that fact.

---

If this article has raised issues for you, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, call Lifeline on 13 11 14.

Penni Russon does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Australia is rich in minerals, metals, sun and wind. Iron ore, copper and critical minerals are all mined here and largely exported overseas to be turned into products such as steel, fertiliser, fuel and infrastructure. Mining and heavy industries create jobs and wealth. But their emissions are some of the hardest to cut.

This is changing. Steel can now be made without coal. Hydrogen can be made using water and renewable power rather than from gas.

The Australian government wants to create greener export industries. It hasn’t been easy. Green hydrogen is proving difficult to finance and scale, while the development of green iron is moving slowly. Interest has grown in green fuels such as biodiesel during this year’s energy crisis, but progress remains slow.

But hard doesn’t mean impossible. To make new exports competitive, policymakers should create green hubs close to renewables and where resources can be shared.

Precincts, not projects

To make enough green iron, green ammonia and green fuels to export, Australia will need large renewable energy zones, energy storage, hydrogen production, water supply and port infrastructure. Much of this already exists or is being scaled up. The problem is coordination.

If every company builds its own separate systems for power, water and transport, costs rise and land use expands. It’s cheaper and more effective to plan regional hubs where industries can share infrastructure, use renewable energy more efficiently and reduce environmental impact.

This isn’t new. Australia’s large, high-tech mining industry relies on hubs. Queensland’s port city of Gladstone is a hub for coal and gas exports, aluminium smelting and chemical manufacturing. These heavy industries use shared infrastructure such as ports, roads and power.

Countries such as China, Germany and the Netherlands are using this hub method as they rapidly scale up green exports.

The cost of green iron and steel depends not just on the technology used in furnaces, but on how well integrated the facility is. A waste stream from one plant can become an input for another. The intense heat produced by making green ammonia or clean fuels can be used for other processes such as preheating iron ore for ironmaking.

Our modelling shows integrating renewables, hydrogen and green iron at a proposed hub in South Australia can cut power costs 20–30% compared to standalone projects by avoiding overbuilding of electricity infrastructure. More cheap renewable power is used, less gas is required and emissions fall more rapidly.

Modelling of a separate hub in New South Wales shows similar benefits.

Future green hubs should be centred around a nature-positive philosophy, where industry and nature restoration sit side by side. Instead of approving projects one by one, planning happens across whole landscapes. Sensitive areas are protected from the start. Infrastructure is concentrated into shared corridors. Natural restoration is part of the plan.

Iron ore – or green iron?

Australia has long been a major iron ore exporter, but makes little iron or steel here.

If Australia moves rapidly, it could take more market share as buyers shift to clean options. German and Australian researchers are working to green the steelmaking process. One option is for Australia to make and export green iron as a precursor to steel.

This would be a surprisingly effective climate measure. Studies suggest Australia could singlehandedly reduce global emissions 4% if it turned its iron ore into green iron.

Is it possible?

Turning this vision into reality is not straightforward. Coordinated industrial hubs are difficult to deliver in Australia.

Fragmented regulations across agencies slow progress. Environmental approvals are typically done project by project rather than at a system level. Government-business collaboration is limited. Business models focus on individual projects rather than collaboration. Where technical solutions exist, institutional and commercial barriers can slow progress.

Here’s how to begin.

First, policymakers should identify optimal hub locations able to co-host mining, processing, green fuel production and renewable energy.

Second, plan the hubs at scale so environmental impacts can be managed and restoration work undertaken nearby.

Third, give the hubs clear, measurable emissions and nature goals. Set targets for emissions reductions, renewable and hydrogen use, water recycling, and ecosystem restoration at a regional scale. Track them over time.

Clear roles for government and industry

Governments have a key role in setting the direction of travel. This means selecting hub locations, coordinating land use and infrastructure planning, aligning approvals to allow system-level assessments rather than individual and investing in shared infrastructure.

They can also reduce risk by supporting early projects and broker agreements between companies. Long-term policy certainty will help unlock private investment.

Industry must respond by collaborating. This includes sharing infrastructure where it makes sense, coordinating across value chains, designing projects around environmental outcomes and working with communities as genuine partners.

Australia can punch well above its weight on green industry. If we succeed, our clean product exports will be a model for the future.

Changlong Wang receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the South Australian Government (Department of Energy and Mining).

Rahman Daiyan receives funding from the Australian Research Council, Australian Renewable Energy Agency, Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, NSW Government and RACE CRC.

This is our home. If we destroy it, and we can’t build it up, then that’s a part of the Earth that’s destroyed, and we won’t be able to get it back.

Matthew, aged ten, isn’t alone in feeling this way.

We interviewed 15 Australian primary school children aged between nine and 12-years-old about environmental change, which includes things such as pollution, climate change and deforestation.

Every child knew the environment was changing, and all of them had feelings about it too.

Worry was most common. We also heard sadness, anger and hopelessness.

These were thoughtful, complex responses from children paying attention to the world around them.

Most research focuses on teens and young adults

We have known for some time that environmental change profoundly impacts mental health. Eco-anxiety refers to worry about environmental decline. It is not a clinical diagnosis and sits within the range of normal emotions for most people.

Eco-anxiety is a rational response to a real threat. However, for some, it impacts functioning (such as sleep and cognition) and can cause significant distress.

Global studies, including a survey of 10,000 young people across ten countries have documented high rates of eco-anxiety in adolescents and young adults – 59% of respondents were very or extremely worried.

But to date, almost all eco-anxiety research has focused on young people aged 16-25-years-old.

The handful of studies conducted in primary school children only offer a preliminary picture, with small samples from Canada and the US.

The experiences of primary school children are therefore poorly understood.

Our interviews offer new insights into this overlooked group.

‘I’m gonna have to deal with it’

The Australian primary school children we interviewed were not vague about their fears.

They worried about animals going extinct, about rising sea levels, about whether the planet would be liveable when they grew up.

One 12-year-old described thinking about

what will happen when I’m older, and how I’m gonna have to deal with it.

They also understood that human activity played a large role and were frustrated that more hadn’t been done by governments and past generations. One ten-year-old told us:

(I’m) mad at the people who could have solved the problem before now, but they didn’t. They just thought “It’s fine, this problem doesn’t really matter”. And then look at the world now, it’s such a big problem.

Eco-anxiety also shaped children’s behaviours and thoughts.

Some attended protests, put up posters or reduced their plastic use, to help them feel calmer. This problem-focused coping can help reduce negative eco-emotions and build a sense of agency.

Importantly, for most children their worries about the environment were not persistent and did not affect their daily lives. We know from research on older children that eco-anxiety can increase over time; persistently high eco-anxiety can be linked to mental health concerns in young adults.

It’s crucial we understand what shapes the early development of these feelings and what makes them manageable.

A role for schools

One unexpected finding was how hopeful children were.

A third of children expressed genuine belief that the environment could recover. One ten-year-old told us:

I just think there’s a possibility that it can get better. And if we try hard enough, we’ll all get there eventually, and we can help it survive.

Hope seems to be more common in younger children than older children and can be protective. It offers the potential for children to channel concern into action rather than helplessness.

However, schools and parents need to create more opportunities for children to act, alongside acknowledging their fears.

Our ongoing research suggests that teachers regularly face children’s eco-emotions about environmental change – which might include curiosity or information-seeking – without adequate training or guidance.

One child in our study noted that her school “wasn’t doing it very effectively” and wanted teachers to take the topic more seriously.

Without the opportunity to discuss their feelings and with a heavy focus on individual actions (such as recycling) children can feel disproportionately responsible, which increases distress rather than reducing it.

Collective action, open discussions of emotions, and education that reflects the true extent of environmental change is likely to help children.

These feelings deserve to be taken seriously

The goal is not to eliminate eco-anxiety in children, but to keep it at a manageable level that doesn’t affect their ability to function in day to day life.

We can then help children to use eco-anxiety as a foundation for action.

It’s important to note we spoke to only 15 children, mostly from metropolitan areas. We cannot say how widespread these experiences are, or how they differ by age, gender, or location. Answering those questions requires more research over longer time frames and with bigger cohorts.

Children are watching, thinking and feeling things about the future of the environment. Those feelings deserve to be taken seriously.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Health Minister Mark Butler has said the government is considering capping specialists’ fees to reduce the gap between what Medicare covers and what specialists charge patients.

The Australian Medical Association strongly opposes the idea and is threatening legal action. Butler says the government is willing to “test the boundaries” of constitutional limits.

So what’s going on here? What does the Constitution have to do with doctors’ fees?

Doctors’ groups oppose ‘socialised’ medicine

The current fuss forms part of a long history of doctors’ lobby groups opposing key elements of Australia’s system of universal health care.

Doctors’ lobby groups have opposed:

• introducing the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) in the 1940s
• introducing Medibank (the first version of Medicare) in 1970s
• introducing Medicare in the 1980s
• expanding the nurse practitioner profession in the early 2000s
• allowing pharmacists to perform vaccinations in the 2010s
• allowing pharmacists to prescribe certain prescription medicines in the 2020s.

It’s no surprise, then, that doctors’ lobby groups oppose the government’s current push to limit patients’ out of pocket costs to see a specialist. It’s also no surprise medical specialists dominate the Australian Taxation Office’s list of highest paid professions.

Some of the doctors’ opposition to health policy had constitutional implications.

The 1946 social services referendum

The Medical Society of Victoria challenged the introduction of the PBS in the High Court in the 1940s. It won because there was nothing in the Constitution giving the federal government power to set it up.

The 1946 social services referendum filled the gap in federal legislative power by adding a new provision to the Constitution. This gave the federal parliament power to make laws about

the provision of maternity allowances, widows’ pensions, child endowment, unemployment, pharmaceutical, sickness and hospital benefits, medical and dental services (but not so as to authorise any form of civil conscription), benefits to students and family allowances.

The limit on preventing civil conscription was introduced into parliament by Liberal Opposition Leader Robert Menzies. He told parliament that without those words, the new power might allow the federal government to “nationalise” health care by “making all doctors and dentists members of one government service which had a monopoly on medical and dental treatment”.

As set out in the official “yes” pamphlet during the referendum, those words “mean that doctors and dentists cannot be forced to become professional officers of the Commonwealth under a scheme of medical and dental services.”

The PBS was reintroduced after the referendum passed.

Constitutional challenges by doctors

Doctors have tried various constitutional challenges in the High Court. They have usually lost.

In 1949, the British Medical Association (as the Australian Medical Association called itself at the time) challenged rules that said prescriptions could only be written on government-supplied forms. It won. The High Court seemed to suggest civil conscription might go so far as to mean “any compulsion of law requiring that men […] perform work in a particular way.”

The High Court took a different view in later cases. In 1980, the General Practitioners Society challenged laws setting out conditions that had to be satisfied before Medicare benefits would be paid for pathology services performed by doctors. It lost.

The High Court said there was a difference between regulating the manner in which medical practice was carried out and compelling a medical practitioner to perform medical services. Only the latter would be unconstitutional civil conscription.

In the most recent challenge in 2009, doctors complained that laws making compliance with professional standards a condition of being eligible to receive Medicare subsidies were unconstitutional. They lost.

The High Court again emphasised the distinction between laws regulating how medical services are performed and laws forcing doctors to perform medical services.

So what about current laws on doctors’ fees?

Specialists’ incomes and fees are already partly regulated by federal law. The Fair Work Commission’s Medical Practitioners Award governs the wages and conditions of specialists who are employees rather than self-employed.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) administers a suite of laws putting limits on the way specialists set their fees. Nobody thinks any of this is unconstitutional.

Other professions are subject to maximum fees. For example, legislation in Victoria says that lawyers cannot charge fees that are more than “fair and reasonable”, and for some categories of legal service the law sets out maximum dollar amounts lawyers can charge their clients. Lawyers do not complain these laws conscript them to work at the behest of the government.

What’s next?

Butler says a parliamentary inquiry will explore various options for capping specialists’ fees. There will be administrative and practical pros and cons for various options.

Options the inquiry might explore include:

• simply capping fees
• making eligibility for Medicare subsidies conditional on not exceeding a maximum fee
• imposing an income tax surcharge on specialists who choose to not comply with caps
• getting the states to legislate the caps, which would avoid the constitutional question altogether.

Regulating private sector prices is different from civil conscription in the sense of compulsion to perform a professional service. So unless the government gives in to political pressure, specialists’ fees look set to be capped one way or another.

Luke Beck is a member of the Australian Labor Party.

Amid major reforms to the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS), unveiled last week, NDIS minister Mark Butler announced the government’s plans to commission supported independent living services for people with disability, “rather than relying on a market that isn’t working”.

Supported independent living is NDIS funding for support workers who can assist people with disability who need some level of help at home all the time.

This announcement indicates a shift away from a market-based model – in which NDIS participants choose who provide services to them, and what kinds – to a more regulated, government-vetted system.

For people with the most significant and permanent disabilities, these changes – together with cuts to social and community participation funding – may be significant. Here’s how it might work.

What is supported independent living?

Supported independent living pays for support workers to help with day-to-day activities such as showering, preparing meals and doing laundry.

Supported independent living payments are often used to fund support provided in group homes. This is where a number of NDIS participants live together and one worker provides shared support to them. Some group homes may also receive another kind of NDIS payment, called specialist disability accommodation funding, which pays for purpose-built accessible housing for people with very high needs.

More than 17,000 people with disability live in group homes in Australia. Around 30% have intellectual disability. Residents frequently have high and complex support needs, and very few other people in their lives beyond support workers.

How did we get here?

Group homes are largely a result of the de-institutionalisation movement in the late 20th century, and grandfathering of supported accommodation from state disability services to the NDIS. People with disability often didn’t have a choice of where they moved to or who they lived with.

New kinds of specialist disability accommodation, such as apartment living or independent units, have been developed in recent years through the NDIS. But data shows many people are still sharing with co-residents they don’t choose, in group living they haven’t chosen.

Stories of abuse, violence and neglect in group homes, shared by residents, are harrowing.

The Disability Royal Commission recommended group homes should be phased out by 2038. But federal, state and territory governments have not yet commenced working together on this recommendation.

A 2023 inquiry also identified many issues in how supported accommodation – meaning the combination of funding for support workers and purpose-built accommodation – currently works in the NDIS.

The inquiry found a greater need for choice and control for people living in group homes (for example, about where they live), better education of the workforce, and more regulation of these living arrangements.

So, how might commissioning providers work?

We still don’t have a lot of detail. But the goal will be to create greater oversight and control over who provides services, and curb safety issues such as neglect and abuse while improving quality.

It could mean the government will purchase more low-cost accommodation where several people share a support worker. And we can expect a more restricted list of registered providers, meaning the companies the government allows to employ the support workers.

Commissioning could also mean the government introduces new rules, such as caps on the number of people with disability who live in one place. Such restrictions are currently in place for specialist disability accommodation, but not supported independent living.

In practice, this might look similar to the current makeup of group homes – mostly small-scale group living – but there will be more regulation. There is also a question about whether commissioning will improve residents’s choice about where they live, or who they live with – a basic right.

The government has also begun trials in ten rural, remote and First Nations communities where they have identified service demand for people with disability far outstrips what is available, including supported accommodation. In these cases, commissioning services will focus on understanding what specific barriers there are to accessing support, considering cultural needs and what local services are available.

Living independently is about more than accommodation

Amid last week’s reforms, the government also announced it will reduce NDIS payments to individuals for social and community participation – from around A$31,000 to $26,000 a year.

These payments fund a person’s needs to travel outside their home, so they are an important part of what it means to live independently. They may cover the cost of attending appointments, shopping or paying bills, taking part in social activities and developing life skills.

The government has instead unveiled a new $200 million Inclusive Communities Fund. This will fund community groups to “host genuine participation activities” for those with disability.

This is part of the government’s broader push to provide foundational and mainstream supports – such as community or school programs, activities, skills-building and information – for people outside of the NDIS.

In some cases, it could mean better inclusion of people with disability in the broader community, such as through local sporting clubs.

But if the NDIS funding that allows people to take part in their community and build independence is cut before these other supports are properly established, there is a risk of further isolation. This could particularly affect people with disability in group homes with the highest needs who rely on this kind of funding to leave home.

And there continue to be concerns about the potential role of algorithms in determining who will receive NDIS funding and who doesn’t.

People with disability want – and have a right – to live a life connected to people and community. This right must remain at the heart of plans to reform how and where they live.

Libby Callaway sits on the NDIS Evidence Advisory Committee Assistive Technology and Capital subcommittee established by the Commonwealth Government Department of Health, Disability and Ageing. She receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), Australian Research Council (ARC), and icare NSW.

Jack Francis Kelly has previously undertaken research funded by the National Disability Insurance Agency in roles with UTS and the Council for Intellectual Disability (CID). Jack is an NDIS participant.

Phillippa Carnemolla receives funding from the Australian Research Council. She is affiliated with Melbourne Disability Institute via the Centre for Universal Design Australia.

Sally Robinson receives funding from the Australian Research Council and Federal and State Governments for research. She is affiliated with the National Disability Research Partnership.

For five years, many Australian university students have been watching the amount they have to pay for their studies with alarm and despair.

In response, the Senate is considering a Greens bill to slash high university student contributions for arts, law and business students.

The bill proposes to reverse student contribution increases imposed in 2021 by the “Job-ready Graduates” policy. This includes doubling the cost of arts degrees – which now cost more than A$50,000 as a result.

Despite the unpopularity of the Job-ready Graduates scheme in the community, the bill is unlikely to pass the Senate.

Only the federal government can fix the problems created by Job-ready Graduates. And in the lead up to the next federal budget on May 12, it shows no interest in doing that.

Job-ready Graduates

The Job-ready Graduates policy cut student contributions in teaching, nursing, engineering and IT courses. It did so to encourage students to enrol in these degrees, which were deemed “job-ready” by the Morrison government.

At the same time, Job-ready Graduates increased student contributions in arts courses, where many graduates take time to find suitable work.

Student contributions also went up for business and law courses, despite their above-average graduate employment rates. Three year bachelor degrees in all these fields now cost more than $50,000.

Under the new Senate bill, proposed by Greens Senator Mehreen Faruqi, the annual student contribution for arts courses would reduce from $17,399 to $8,164. For business and law, the price would drop from $17,399 to $13,624. These are the pre-Job-ready Graduate scheme rates adjusted for inflation.

The flaw in the legislation

At a Senate inquiry into the bill this week, most witnesses – which included university leaders, union representatives and researchers such as myself – favoured student contribution reform.

But they were less supportive of the Greens bill as the way to improve matters.

The reason is the bill would cut student contributions without offsetting increases in public subsidies.

The total annual funding rate received by universities per full-time arts student – the student contribution plus the public subsidy via the government – would drop from $18,715 to $9,480. This would effectively halve universities’ revenue from arts students. Law and business funding would drop by 20%.

So, many courses currently on offer would not be viable on these reduced funding rates.

This policy flaw reflects the Australian Constitution’s constraints rather than the Greens policy. Under the constitution, the Senate cannot “appropriate” money, such as authorising the use of public funds for higher subsidies to universities.

The government’s resistance to change

Labor opposed Job-ready Graduates when it was in opposition, but in government it has delayed taking concrete action to reverse it.

In February 2024, the Universities Accord recommended “urgent” change to student contributions.

In November 2024, Education Minister Jason Clare said the new Australian Tertiary Education Commission (ATEC) would examine student contributions. But legislation passed in March 2026 to formally establish ATEC, did not mention student contributions.

Clare has implied cost is the main reason for avoiding student contribution reforms so far.

As he told the ABC’s Four Corners program in March:

I’ve said [the Job-ready Graduates scheme has] failed. I’ve also said it’s expensive to fix and not easy to fix.

The Innovative Research Universities group (which includes Flinders, Griffith and James Cook universities among others) estimates a full reversal of Job-ready Graduates would cost the government $1.9 billion a year.

A possible workaround

While the new Australian Tertiary Education Commission cannot directly advise on student contributions (what students pay to go to uni) it can examine the total funding per individual university student.

ATEC can also advise on the Commonwealth’s contribution to student funding. The total funding rate minus the Commonwealth contribution equals the student contribution. ATEC can therefore indirectly suggest student contributions.

Omitting student contributions from ATEC’s legislation may be a government own goal. It could end up with implied new student contributions that can be calculated with simple maths, but without the political protection of justifications provided by expert ATEC advice.

‘One bite at a time’

In explaining his approach to higher education reform, Clare sometimes uses the proverb of “eating an elephant” – something that is only possible one bite a time.

The imagery is off-putting, but the government has implemented other higher education priorities, including a 20% cut in student debt last year.

Perhaps there will be a first move on student contributions in next months’s budget, but no hints have been dropped so far. Having already suffered the political cost for resisting reform on student fees, the government may want to keep the budget benefits.

What could work instead?

My own submission to the current Senate inquiry proposed an incremental approach to reform. Urgent action should be taken on student contributions for arts degrees, as current levels condemn many arts graduates to decades of repayments which may never clear all their debt. Other student contribution decreases, for degrees with better repayment prospects, can be postponed.

To limit cost to government, I suggest increased student contributions for engineering and IT courses, which received discounts under Job-ready Graduates. Graduates from these fields have relatively high incomes.

The Universities Accord recommended student contributions based on expected lifetime incomes. If this principle is eventually adopted, these interim changes would move in this direction.

There is no perfect student contribution system. But we can do much better than now in balancing fairness to students, university funding, and constraints on Commonwealth funding.

Andrew Norton works in Monash University's Faculty of Business and Economics, which would lose money if the discussed legislation passed in its current form. He put in a submission to the Senate inquiry discussed in the article and appeared as a witness.