The Australian university sector has become disconnected from the national imagination and needs a compelling new vision for the future.

While institutions in other nations were often founded on enduring philanthropic or state visions, Australia’s universities evolved from colonial civic pride to state-based ambitions. The Menzies era provided a clear national framework, but subsequent centralisation of funding (Whitlam) and structural reforms ( Dawkins, Bradley) created a uniform, mass system.

This system, while successful in scale and rankings, is now driven more by commercial pressures and compliance than a clear civic mission. This has left the sector vulnerable and disconnected from a national imagination, highlighting the urgent need to articulate a new, integrating vision.

The great visionaries

Universities rarely achieve greatness by accident. Their path is typically shaped by ‘vision holders,’ the individuals or groups who define their purpose, validate their societal functions, and provide support through shifting political and financial landscapes.

History provides many examples of these foundational figures. Cardinal John Henry Newman articulated the cultural mission of British universities. Wilhelm von Humboldt created the modern research university in Berlin, connecting teaching directly with research. In the United States, Abraham Lincoln’s Morrill Act established land-grant colleges, linking higher education to agriculture and industry. Later, in the 1960s, Clark Kerr’s “multiversity” concept provided a clear structure for mass higher education.

Many great American private universities were born from the specific vision and philanthropy of individuals. Institutions like Harvard, Yale, Cornell, Johns Hopkins, and Stanford were established by founders who embedded a distinct purpose into each.

These visions have lasted because they were built on strong social purposes. Stanford still champions practical learning, Johns Hopkins remains a model for research-intensive universities, and Cornell maintains its “any person, any study” ethos. The US land-grant universities continue to be vital centres for applied science. These founding ideals endure because they clearly defined the university’s role within society.

Australian beginnings

Australia, by contrast, has found it difficult to sustain such a clear vision. The first universities in Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, and Tasmania were products of civic pride in the new colonies. Established by parliaments, benefactors, and public subscription, their role was to grant legitimacy to settler society. They aimed to provide cultural standing and train professionals in law, medicine, and public service, seeking parity with British traditions. However, these founding ideals rarely evolved into lasting national missions.

In the early twentieth century, new universities in Queensland and Western Australia emerged to serve growing state populations. These institutions reinforced the idea that higher education was essential for state-level civic advancement and economic development.

A new phase began with the establishment of the Australian National University in 1946. Conceived as part of the post-war reconstruction agenda, ANU was designed as a research university of global standing. It signalled the Commonwealth taking responsibility for higher education, viewing universities as instruments of national policy and international positioning. This charts a clear transition from colonial civic pride, to state-based ambition, and finally to a national project.

The Menzies era

Sir Robert Menzies, during the 1950s and 1960s, offered a decisive national framework for higher education. His government linked universities to cultural enrichment, economic development, and Australia’s international reputation. This period saw a major expansion of institutions and the introduction of sustained commonwealth funding, elevating universities to a matter of national policy.

This era also saw the rise of the Colleges of Advanced Education (CAEs) in the 1960s and 1970s. Responding to the Martin Committee recommendations, CAEs were designed as a vocational alternative to universities. They offered practical training in teaching, business, and applied sciences, creating a binary system of tertiary education.

Whitlam and beyond

A critical shift occurred in 1974 when the Whitlam Government assumed full financial responsibility for universities, taking it from the states. What started as commonwealth assistance became, in effect, a system of financial control. Because the Constitution gives the commonwealth no direct power over education, conditional grants became its main policy lever.

The consequence of this centralisation has been significant. A sector emerged where vision is mediated through funding formulas, and long-term strategy is secondary to short-term budgetary cycles. This contrasts with federations like the US or Germany, where states and national governments share responsibility.

This binary system was dismantled by the Dawkins reforms of 1987–1989. Seeking efficiency and international competitiveness, Education Minister John Dawkins created the Unified National System. This policy merged CAEs with universities or upgraded them, creating a mass higher education system. While access was broadened, the reforms replaced the distinctive missions of different institutions with a more uniform framework, driven by administrative logic rather than intellectual purpose.

Further expansion came from the 2008 Bradley Review, which set ambitious targets for participation and equity. This led to the demand-driven funding model in 2012, which generated huge enrolment growth. By 2021, the Job Ready Graduates Initiative shifted the focus again, this time towards employability outcomes.

A system in search of identity

This progression from Whitlam to Dawkins and Bradley has created a sector that, while successful in scale, faces a challenge of identity. Australian universities rank well globally and have broadened access significantly. Yet, this growth has come at a cost.

Universities are increasingly defined by compliance frameworks, global rankings, and revenue growth, rather than by a civic role or the pursuit of knowledge as a public good. Declining commonwealth funding pushed institutions to aggressively expand into international student markets. This created a business model resembling a hamster wheel of income growth, making universities appear more like commercial enterprises than civic institutions.

This strategy was never matched by a compelling public narrative explaining why this growth mattered to the nation. When the pandemic exposed the over-reliance on international fees, universities were left vulnerable and criticised for having priorities misaligned with the national interest.

Simultaneously, the state-based TAFE systems were progressively defunded through privatisation and contestable funding models. As TAFE institutes struggled, they left a vacuum in vocational and technical education. Universities were quick to exploit this gap, expanding their own course offerings into areas traditionally served by TAFE. University lobby groups reinforced a cultural hierarchy that privileged academic degrees over practical qualifications.

The Dawkins reforms and subsequent policies have resulted in a highly centralised, nationally oriented, and uniform system. Institutions that once had distinct missions—whether research-focused or vocational—were drawn into a single framework with common rules. This contrasts sharply with the diversified systems in other countries, which offer a mix of elite research hubs, liberal arts colleges, and technical institutes. Australia’s system, while efficient, has limited genuine institutional diversity.

Towards a new vision

The national visions that once guided Australian higher education have been replaced by sector management. The civic ideals of the 19th century and the nation-building impulse of the Menzies era have been buried under layers of funding formulas and compliance. The sector is large and successful by many metrics, but its social purpose remains deeply contested.

Australia is now in a polarised debate about the purpose of its universities. Should they prioritise research excellence, social equity, skilled graduates, or cultural life? These goals are not necessarily in conflict, but the lack of an integrating vision makes it hard to balance these demands.

This debate is happening without a clear group of influential visionaries who can frame a long-term narrative. Instead, the discussion defaults to what the federal government should do, which reinforces dependency rather than leadership. The challenge is to articulate a vision that moves beyond fiscal pragmatism and institutional uniformity.

Visionaries do exist in Australia. Individuals like Brian Schmidt at ANU and Glyn Davis, among others, are actively discussing ambitious futures. The problem is that these voices seldom translate into guidance for the entire system. Australia’s culture of scepticism towards public intellectuals means their ideas are often dismissed as personal positions rather than as potential national strategies.

The issue is not an absence of vision, but insufficient opportunities to develop and share these ideas in a framework that values both excellence and diversity. Unless universities, governments, and business leaders are willing to support these voices, the system will continue to search for an identity that honours its achievements and its aspirations. The task now is to articulate a compelling future that reconnects universities with the broader national imagination.

The views expressed in this article may or may not reflect those of Pearls and Irritations.