1. Egalitarianism
2. Utilitarian Ground Truth

The Bill promotes equal educational opportunity by reducing financial barriers for students pursuing Society and Culture disciplines. Under the current Job-ready Graduates policy, students in arts and humanities face much higher fees that can deter those from lower-income backgrounds. Lowering the maximum contribution fosters greater socioeconomic diversity in these fields and aligns education costs with public benefit.

Broader participation in History, Philosophy and related fields yields significant social and economic returns: graduates contribute to a more informed citizenry, stronger public policy analysis and cultural vitality. Reducing fees enhances overall welfare by unlocking talent that might otherwise be excluded due to cost [Judgment].

Moreover, the Bill imposes no net financial impact on the Budget, making it a cost-effective way to bolster access without additional taxpayer burden.

1. Value-Neutral / Epistemic Objection

While improving access is laudable, tuition pricing exists to signal labour market needs and allocate scarce education resources efficiently. Artificially lowering fees for Society and Culture courses may distort student incentives and exacerbate skill shortages in STEM and other priority areas.

Blanket fee reductions risk creating budgetary pressures on universities, leading to cross-subsidisation that could reduce the quality or availability of places in other disciplines. If the goal is to support disadvantaged students, targeted grants or means-tested assistance would be a more precise and transparent tool [Judgment].