Labor¡¯s confirmation that it would bring back uncapped student numbers in Australia has been welcomed as potentially enhancing the ÖйúAƬ system¡¯s ¡°capacity to adapt¡± to student and labour market needs.

Bill Shorten, leader of the opposition party, outlined the plan in his response to the government¡¯s budget, saying that Labor would reverse the Liberal-led administration¡¯s suspension of the demand-driven system and its freeze on funding, imposed in December 2017.

The uncapping of student numbers is also a political battleground in England, where a Conservative-led government lifted number controls in 2015. Tory criticisms of Labour¡¯s plan to abolish tuition fees and introduce direct public funding of universities often contain the claim that such a policy would mean the reintroduction of number controls and thus the exclusion of disadvantaged students from ÖйúAƬ.

Australian Labor¡¯s policy of uncapping places would cost almost A$9?billion (?5?billion) over 10 years and would be paid for by closing ¡°generous tax loopholes and concessions¡±, a party spokesman was .

ÖйúAƬ

Although Labor, which introduced the demand-driven system in government in 2009, had indicated previously that it would reinstate the system, Mr Shorten¡¯s budget response was official confirmation and brought both supportive and hostile responses.

Universities Australia called Labor¡¯s announcement ¡°a win for fairness, productivity, the national economy and social cohesion¡±. But Simon Birmingham, the education and training minister, : ¡°Labor doesn¡¯t believe there are any efficiencies to be found in universities, despite the record funding they¡¯re getting. They¡¯ll just let unis write their own cheque no matter the cost to working Australians.¡±

ÖйúAƬ

¡°For ÖйúAƬ policy, Labor¡¯s announcement is very significant,¡± said Andrew Norton, ÖйúAƬ programme director at the Grattan Institute and co-author of a 2013 review of the demand-driven system for the government, which recommended that caps not be reimposed. ¡°It¡¯s about much more than the money; it is about the system¡¯s capacity to adapt to changes in student preferences and labour market needs.¡±

Julia Gillard, the former Labor prime minister who introduced the demand-driven system as education minister, previously told Times ÖйúAƬ that it was the obvious response in Australia to the growing worldwide demand for higher-level skills.

¡°You¡¯ve got to answer the question: What education structure enables you to get enough students into a system that gets them those higher level skills? In Australia, that did mean growth,¡± she said.

In terms of Labor¡¯s plan to fund the uncapping of numbers, Mr Norton said: ¡°Labor is planning to increase a range of taxes and not keep some Liberal tax cuts, so in general they are dealing with funding issues via tax revenue.¡±

ÖйúAƬ

He added that Labor was ¡°also planning a big review of post-school education. There needs to be some rebalancing in favour of vocational education, which is usually cheaper on a per-student basis. But we don¡¯t have much detail on how that would work.¡±

Before the demand-driven system was suspended, the Group of Eight, which represents research-intensive universities, had attacked the system ¨C saying that rising costs to the government from?greater student numbers could put an unsustainable burden on the ÖйúAƬ budget.

¡°The Group of Eight seemed to believe that if less money was spent on demand-driven funding, more could be spent on research,¡± Mr Norton said. ¡°But in my view that was never very likely. When the freeze came, it was to deliver savings to the overall budget, not to spend money on other ÖйúAƬ priorities.¡±

john.morgan@timeshighereducation.com