Higher Education Research & Development

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cher20

Graduate employability: the higher education

landscape in Australia

Lynlea Small, Ruth McPhail & Amie Shaw

To cite this article: Lynlea Small, Ruth McPhail & Amie Shaw (2021): Graduate employability:
the higher education landscape in Australia, Higher Education Research & Development, DOI:
10.1080/07294360.2021.1877623

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2021.1877623

Published online: 22 Feb 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 376

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cher20
HIGHER EDUCATION RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT
https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2021.1877623

Graduate employability: the higher education landscape in

Australia
a b b
Lynlea Small , Ruth McPhail and Amie Shaw
a
Griffith Business School, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Australia; bDepartment of Employment Relations
and Human Resources, Griffith Business School, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Australia

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The Dawkins white paper of 1988 was introduced by the Australian Received 15 October 2019
government to reshape the Higher Education (HE) landscape. Accepted 9 December 2020
Dawkins’ discussion paper of 1990, Nelson’s policy document of
KEYWORDS
2003, the Bradley Review of 2008 and the Lomax-Smith Review of Australia; higher education;
2011 built on and extended Dawkins’ white paper. Such policy policy; graduate
reforms have transformed the culture of Australian HE and employability; graduate
contributed to shaping the employment outcomes of graduates of outcomes
Australian HE institutions (HEI). However, rather than HE
qualifications enhancing a resume, such qualifications are now
expected. Today, HE graduates in Australia can face long periods
to secure full-time jobs with many experiencing
underemployment and unemployment. Using document reviews
to research for this article, the article contributes to the discussion
of HE graduates in Australia in several ways. Firstly, it reviews five
key policies that led to the massification of HE in Australia.
Secondly, it presents a comparison of the composition of
university graduates in the period from 1989 to 2019. Thirdly, it
examines how policy reforms contributed to shaping graduate
employment prior to the COVID-19 global pandemic occurring.
Finally, and importantly, this article will assist as a point of
reference when researching graduate employability outcomes
post COVID-19 global pandemic. This article represents a
knowledge base for all stakeholders in the HE sector to draw from
in terms of policy and planning with the end goal to enhance the
employment prospects and employability of HE graduates. This
article also presents numerous areas for future research.

Introduction
The Higher Education (HE) sector in Australia has experienced significant change over
the past 30 years. The term ‘massification’ (Artess et al., 2017; Mok et al., 2016; Tomlin-
son, 2017) has become popular in western countries to describe the mass expansion of
HE, that is, the shift from universities being considered as elite systems to now being
mass systems (Schuetze & Slowey, 2002). Changes to government policy in Australia
and other western economies were implemented with the end goal to enable an expan-
sion of university places that accommodates a social composition of the HE population

CONTACT Lynlea Small DrLynlea@bigpond.com Griffith Business School, Griffith University, Gold Coast campus,
QLD, 4222, Australia https://www.linkedin.com/in/lynleasmall/
© 2021 HERDSA
2 L. SMALL ET AL.

that reflects that of the general population (Marginson, 2004). Individuals who have
experienced different social and family backgrounds, are of a broader age group, and
have different motivations to study (Schuetze & Slowey, 2002) from the ‘traditional’ stu-
dents, were targeted.
The result was a significant increase in people with HE qualifications seeking to enter
the workforce (AWPA, 2013). However, that increase has not been matched by the same
increase in graduate jobs (Artess et al., 2017). While the end goal of broadening the diver-
sity of the HE cohort has been met, an unforeseen outcome has resulted. University qua-
lifications once regarded as distinctive on a resume, are now expected, and no longer
separate prospective employees from each other (Tomlinson, 2012), indicating that qua-
lifications no longer assure employment (Mok et al., 2016). This is a major concern for
stakeholders including students, their parents, universities, employers and governments
(Holmes, 2017) who have expressed concerns over acceptable employability and pro-
fessional outcomes for university graduates (Coates, 2015; Smith et al., 2014). Graduates
and their parents have invested considerably in the graduates’ education and training.
The ethos has been that an investment in human capital, that is, the investment an indi-
vidual makes in themselves, is rewarded by the labour market in terms of increased
opportunities for the worker (Barach, 2015).
Consequently, one of the most important developments in HE in the twenty-first century
has been the employability agenda (Moore & Morton, 2017). Employability is ‘the capacity to
be self-reliant in navigating the labour market, utilising knowledge, individual skills and attri-
butes, and adapting them to the employment context, showcasing them to employers, while
taking into account external and other constraints’ (Small et al., 2018, p. 4). Enhancing gradu-
ate employability is important because there was a time when a university degree offered a
passport into graduate employment (Harvey, 2000). Due to the massification of HE in Aus-
tralia and elsewhere, that is not necessarily the case today, a degree is just the beginning (Yorke
& Harvey, 2005). Employers often view educational attainment as a ‘first-pass filter’ (Hogan
et al., 2013, p. 5) when it comes to recruitment practices.
This article contributes to the ongoing discussion of employability of HE graduates in
Australia in several ways. Firstly, it reviews five key policies that led to the massification
of HE in Australia. Secondly, it presents a comparison of the composition of university
graduates in the period from 1989 to 2019. Thirdly, it examines how policy reforms have
contributed to shaping graduate employment. Finally, this article examines the landscape
of HE in Australia just prior to the COVID-19 global pandemic occurring. As such, this
article will provide a point of reference when researching graduate employability out-
comes post COVID-19 global pandemic. From this review and discussion, an enhanced
understanding will be gained of how the state of the HE landscape and graduate employ-
ability in Australia came to be just prior to the COVID-19 global pandemic. This is
important for all stakeholders, working within HE in Australia, and other HE stake-
holders including prospective students and their parents, graduates, industry and
policy makers in Australia and elsewhere.

Methods
A qualitative research approach using document reviews was undertaken for the purpose
of researching for this article (Mackenzie & Knipe, 2006). The criteria for selection of the
 HIGHER EDUCATION RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT 3

documents for review were that they must be ‘policy’ relevant to HE that included
specific features. The features included, (1) Equitable access to HE for all; (2) Student
fees; and (3) Graduate employability outcomes. Equitable access to HE and student
fees are two key aspects that ultimately changed the landscape of HE in Australia and
moved it from an elite system to a mass system. Graduate employability outcomes
measure the success of the objectives of the reforms, specifically, to produce a higher-
skilled workforce from an increase in a population with HE qualifications by providing
opportunities for all groups in Australian society to participate in HE. These three fea-
tures resulted in the following documents being selected and reviewed for this study;
The Dawkins white paper of 1988 (Dawkins, 1988), Dawkins’ ‘A fair chance for all’ dis-
cussion paper of 1990 as an outcome of Dawkins’ white paper (Dawkins, 1990), Nelson’s
policy document 2003 (Nelson, 2003), Bradley’s review of 2008 (Bradley, 2008) and the
Lomax-Smith review of 2011 (Lomax-Smith et al., 2011). These documents were chosen
because they not only met the selection criteria, each document also built on and
extended the policy aims and objectives of those previously implemented (Australian
Government, 2015).
Other reviews undertaken subsequent to the Dawkins white paper (1988) were con-
sidered but not included for the following reasons. Learning for Life: Review of higher
education financing and policy (West, 1998) was not included in this article because
the Australian government did not make a formal response to the West Review relevant
to equitable access to HE and student fees. The Kemp-Norton Review of 2014 (Kemp &
Norton, 2014) was not included because the recommendations did not impact equitable
access to HE and had minimal effect on student fees.
Additionally, data were collected and statistics were analysed from numerous sources
including government websites and government documents, and Universities Australia’s
website to both support and challenge the outcomes of the policy reforms.

The massification of higher education in Australia

Endorsing student fees
Up until 1973, students studying in Australian universities were required to pay fees.
However, most students were exempt, having obtained scholarships based on academic
merit. From 1973 to 1986, fees were abolished with universities in Australia financed by
the government with no direct contribution from students. In 1987, the Higher Edu-
cation Administration Charge (HEAC) was established. All students were required to
pay a small up-front fee of $250. The significance of this payment was that it was repre-
sentative of the government endorsing student fees and set the scene for the sweeping
reforms involving user charges that were to follow (Chapman & Ryan, 2002). The first
of such reforms commenced with the Dawkins white paper of 1988 (Dawkins, 1988).

Dawkins’ white paper, 1988

Dawkins’ white paper of 1988 (Dawkins, 1988) set out the Australian government’s strat-
egy for developing the HE system. This strategy was part of a broader agenda for reform
across the employment, education, and training portfolio. Faced with rapidly changing
4 L. SMALL ET AL.

international markets, Dawkins’ white paper (Dawkins, 1988) explained that success
depended on: ‘among other things, the conceptual, creative and technical skills of the
labour force, the ability to innovate and be entrepreneurial’ (p. 6). The concern was
that groups that were disadvantaged financially or in other ways faced barriers to partici-
pation in HE which limited the capacity of the country to develop the highest skilled
workforce possible. This group of individuals was considered ‘a source of economic
inefficiency’ (p. 7). The ethos was that one of the principal means for individuals to
accomplish independence, economic advancement and personal growth was through
education. As such, access to education was vital.
Prior to Dawkins’ white paper (Dawkins, 1988), a ‘tripartite system’ existed. The insti-
tutions within the tripartite system included Colleges of Advanced Education (CAE),
Technical and Further Education (TAFE) institutions and universities (Pick, 2006,
p. 233). Dawkins (1988) abolished that system and created the Unified National
System (UNS) in which all institutions were given university status (Hogan, 2016).
This considerable change was ‘commonly seen as a watershed, bringing new ways of
funding, directing and organising universities, expanding their size, reorienting their
activities and setting in train a far-reaching transformation of the academic enterprise’
(Hogan, 2016, p. 1).
In 1989, 90,477 individuals graduated from institutions within the UNS. Bachelor
(undergraduate) graduates accounted for the majority at 59.65%. Postgraduate graduates
accounted for 17.64%. Graduates from other Bachelor degrees that included ‘Associate
Degree’, ‘Advanced Diploma’, ‘Diploma’ and ‘Other Award’ courses accounted for
16.87%. Then followed higher degree graduates at 5.84% (including research and course-
work) (Australian Government, 2001) – see Table 2.
From Dawkins’ white paper (Dawkins, 1988) came the Higher Education Contri-
bution Scheme (HECS) (Australian Government, 2003), a policy that was internationally
unique at the time of its inception in 1989. It was part of the strategy to move universities
from being government funded based on precedent and classification, to government
funding based on merit and achievement. At that time, all Australian undergraduates
paid a charge of $2,250 per year which amounted to approximately 15–20% of average
degree costs (Chapman & Ryan, 2002). The charge was paid in one of two ways: either
as an up-front fee that attracted a discount initially set at 15%; or by deferring the
payment until graduation when at that time the charge would be collected through the
personal income tax system on an income-contingent basis. At that time, the income
threshold for repayment was set at $27,700 per annum. Graduates who earned
that amount had to pay two per cent of their taxable income each year. Payments rose
to three and four per cent at higher income levels (Chapman & Ryan, 2002). Both the
threshold and the income percentage rates grew in subsequent years (Australian Govern-
ment, 2018, 2019b, 2020b).

Dawkins’ ‘A fair chance for all’ discussion paper, 1990

Other significant changes came from Dawkins’ white paper (Dawkins, 1988), but most
importantly to the employability agenda was a commitment by the Australian govern-
ment to the development of a long-term strategy making equity objectives a principal
concern of management planning and review in HE. Later, Dawkins (1990) proposed
 HIGHER EDUCATION RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT 5

a national plan to bring equity to HE with his discussion paper, ‘A fair chance for all:
Higher education that’s within everyone’s reach’, that detailed the plan’s development
and implementation. The goal was that Australians from all groups in society would
have the opportunity to participate in HE. This would be achieved by changing the
balance of the student cohort to one that more closely resembled the composition of con-
temporary society. The major targets were: people from socio-economically disadvan-
taged groups, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, women, particularly in
non-traditional courses and postgraduate study, people from non-English speaking back-
grounds, people with disabilities, and people from rural and isolated areas (Dawkins,
1990).

Nelson’s policy document 2003

The next major change came into effect in 2005 with Nelson’s policy document (Nelson,
2003) that set out a blueprint for reform that would see the Australian HE system shaped
by an integrated policy framework based on four foundation principles: sustainability,
quality, equity and diversity. The goal was to create better collaboration between individ-
ual universities and other education providers, industry, business, regions and commu-
nities (Nelson, 2003). This shift in the policy programme set up universities to become
self-sufficient and economically efficient businesses competing head to head in a free
market (Pick, 2006).
However, the biggest reform for students was the abolishment of up-front fees. The
policy document (Nelson, 2003) argued that the cost of a university education should
be met by individuals due to the benefit of lifetime earnings over time (men $600,000
and women $400,000) when compared to non-graduates. However, it also supported life-
long learning, the upgrading and attainment of new skills and equity of access to HE. As
such, free HE at the point of entry was introduced, with loan arrangements available to
pay back. The mindset was, by assisting to remove barriers to national and personal
investment in education, training and skills development, increased enrolments in
undergraduate courses would occur thereby assisting students to access their preferred
course or institution (Nelson, 2003).
The Higher Education Loan Programme (HELP) (see Australian Government,
2020b), came to fruition that incorporated the current HECS scheme and two new
loan schemes: Fee Paying HELP (FEE-HELP) to assist students paying full fees in
public and eligible private universities; and Overseas Study HELP (OS-HELP) to assist
students who wanted to complete part of their study overseas. As with HECS, these
loans were and still are income contingent. Under the FEE-HELP scheme, students
could borrow from the Australian government, at that time, a maximum amount of
$50,000. All payments for student fees under the loan’s schemes were paid directly to uni-
versities. Further, the numbers of Australian government supported places were
increased but fees for these places were capped, limiting universities’ ability to charge
more for high-demand courses (Pick, 2006). Also, limiting the amount a student could
borrow under the new FEE-HELP scheme placed a ceiling on fees that could be
charged to domestic private students and demand for places. In effect, international
full fee-paying students then became one of the main sources of private income for uni-
versities which saw competition for the international student dollar rise considerably
6 L. SMALL ET AL.

(Pick, 2006). Notably, in 2004, Australia’s third largest export was international edu-
cation which provided significant economic relief (Marginson, 2004).

The Bradley review 2008

The Bradley Review of 2008 (Bradley, 2008) was initiated to examine and report on the
future direction of the sector, its suitability for purpose in meeting the needs of the Aus-
tralian community and economy, and options for reform. The Bradley Review (Bradley,
2008) found that despite the sector’s great strengths, it faced significant emerging threats
which required decisive action. Internationally, it was accepted that there were strong
links between a country’s productivity and the high-skill level of its population. The
Bradley Review (Bradley, 2008) argued that it was important to encourage both an
increase in the size of population with degree-level qualifications and an improvement
in the quality of graduates. Other countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-oper-
ation and Development (OECD) had set targets of up to 50% in the proportion of its
population aged 25–34 years with degree-level qualifications. One of the emerging
threats was that in Australia, only 29% of that age group had such a qualification,
placing Australia at a great competitive disadvantage unless immediate action was
taken. It was predicted that by 2010, the supply of people holding undergraduate qualifi-
cations would not meet the demand. To ensure equity, the same groups were targeted as
those identified by Dawkins (1990) and Nelson (2003).
Another threat was the need for major reforms to the financing and regulatory frame-
works for HE in Australia. One main feature of the recommendations that set this review
apart from Nelson’s policy document (Nelson, 2003) and further contributed to shaping
graduate employment outcomes was that universities were given the freedom to enrol as
many students as demand required, decide which students to enrol and set their own
standards for enrolment. Another feature was the removal of fee caps, that is, universities
were given approval to set their own fees for those courses not designated as an Austra-
lian government-supported course. The Bradley Review (Bradley, 2008) also acknowl-
edged the considerable presence Australia had achieved in international HE.
Australia’s success story from the 20 years leading into The Bradley Review (Bradley,
2008) was the export of education to international students. Further, along with its
importance as an export industry, the mindset was that undergraduate education of
international students would likely make an important contribution to Australia’s
skilled migration effort in areas of labour market shortage. International students who
successfully gain workplace sponsorship or residency status compete with domestic
graduates on equal terms for the same jobs.

The Lomax-Smith review 2011

The Lomax-Smith Review of 2011, known as the Higher Education Base Funding Review
(Lomax-Smith et al., 2011, p. v), ‘defined enduring principles to underpin the long-term
funding of Australian higher education as well as specific recommendations and options
for a reformed funding model’. Many changes to the system of that time were rec-
ommended, but few were implemented. One key recommendation that was implemented
and is relevant to this article was the increase in the Higher Education Participation and
 HIGHER EDUCATION RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT 7

Partnerships Programme (HEPPP) funding. In response to recommendations from the

Bradley Review (Bradley, 2008), the Australian government assigned additional
funding to support increasing the participation rate of low socioeconomic status (SES)
students in higher education through the HEPPP. Two distinct elements comprise the
HEPPP, those being ‘partnership’ and ‘participation’. The aim of the partnership
element is to assist universities to conduct outreach activities with the objective to
build relationships with schools, Vocational Education and Training (VET) providers,
and other organisations that include the community of potential students from low
SES backgrounds. The end goal of the funding was to create collaborations and partner-
ships to encourage and support low SES students to engage in HE.
The aim of the ‘participation’ element was to deliver an incentive for universities to
enrol low SES students, and in doing so, assist to meet the costs of reaching the Govern-
ment’s participation target that by 2020, 20% of HE students will be from the lowest SES
quartile. The review concluded that in meeting the needs of low SES students, the cost to
universities was a core component of funding for teaching and learning. It was rec-
ommended that the amount of $1000 per equivalent full-time student load (EFTSL) be
provided to universities for each low SES student they enrolled (Lomax-Smith et al.,
2011).

Outcomes of the move to mass HE in Australia

The university landscape in Australia post reforms
The policy reforms and rapid expansion of HE in Australia from 1989 to 2019 has
changed the university landscape. In 2019, 41 local universities and two private overseas
universities operating in Australia made up the landscape of the Australian HE system.
The local universities comprised 37 public universities, three private universities and one
small specialist private university (Universities Australia, 2019).
Figure 1 below illustrates the rise in individuals who have completed a university
degree in all fields across the period from 1989 to 2019.
The results of total graduate increases in Australia in real figures from 1989 to 2019 are
shown in Table 1 below in five-year intervals.
The information reports the continual expansion of numbers of graduates, in line with
the policy reforms promoting an inclusive HE sector to create higher productivity
through increased skill levels of Australia’s population. Domestic female graduates
have continually outnumbered domestic male graduates. In comparison, overseas
female graduates were only slightly less than the number of male overseas graduates
until 2009. Since that time, females have continually outnumbered males. In 2019,
56.77% of all graduates were females. Females was one of the target groups identified
by Dawkins’ white paper (Dawkins, 1988) that set out to ensure equity objectives
became a principal concern of management planning and review in HE.
In 1989 international students accounted for three in every 100 students. Significantly,
in 2019, two in every five students were international students. The market driven HE
sector saw international students provide much needed and higher-level income. In
2019, the education of international students remained Australia’s third largest export
and was valued at $33 billion a year (Universities Australia, 2019).
8 L. SMALL ET AL.

Figure 1. University Graduates in Australia from 1989 to 2019. Source: Australian Government (2001,
2019a, 2020a).

A comparison of graduates by award course completion in 1989, one year after the
implementation of Dawkins’ white paper (Dawkins, 1988), and again in 2019 is provided
below in Table 2. The latter is an outcome of policy reforms detailed earlier.
A reduction in the percentage of students studying at Bachelor level was offset by a
greater increase in students studying at postgraduate level. This indicates an increase
in the number of individuals seeking additional qualifications. Universities Australia

Table 1. Increase in real figures of graduates from 1989 to 2019 in five-year intervals.
Graduates 1989 1994 1999 2004 2009 2014 2019
Total 90,477 138,714 164,423 225,441 272,230 319,209 382,269
Domestic 87,709 126,587 136,160 161,622 175,070 215,382 230,280
International 2,768 12,127 28,263 63,819 97,160 103,827 151,989
Domestic females 48,930 73,770 78,850 93,894 104,023 129,045 139,201
Domestic males 38,779 52,817 57,310 67,728 71,047 86,337 91,079
International females 1,209 5,684 13,973 31,646 49,074 53,514 77,814
International males 1,559 6,443 14,290 32,173 48,086 50,313 74,175
Source: Australian Government (2001, 2019a, 2020a).

Table 2. Award course completions in Australia in 1989 and 2019.

Total graduates Total graduates
Award 1989 Percentage 2019 Percentage
Bachelor 53,974 59.65 194,736 50.94
Postgraduate 15,949 17.64 151,406 39.61
Other Bachelor 15,268 16.87 26,638 6.97
Higher degree (including research and 5,286 5.84 9,489 2.48
coursework)
Total 90,477 100.00 382,269 100.00
Source: Australian Government (2001, 2020a).
 HIGHER EDUCATION RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT 9

Table 3. Growth in domestic undergraduate enrolments by equity group from 2008 to 2017.
Type of student 2008 2017 Percentage increase
Students with a disability 24,311 54,265 123.00
Indigenous students 7,038 14,429 105.00
Students from low Socioeconomic status 90,467 150,063 66.00
Regional and remote students 110,124 165,387 50.00
Source: Universities Australia (2019).

(2019) reported that 39.7% of those aged 25–34-years-old in Australia hold a Bachelor
degree or higher. That is up from the 29% that was cause for concerns raised in The
Bradley Review (Bradley, 2008).
Additionally, Universities Australia (2019) reported that in 2017, 1,513,383 students
were enrolled in HE awards. Domestic students accounted for 1,081,945 of the cohort
while international student enrolments were 431,438. The growth in domestic under-
graduate enrolments by equity group is depicted in Table 3. It highlights the increase
in numbers of non-traditional students from 2008 to 2017.
Specifically, Table 3 demonstrates that Dawkins’ (1988) equity policy and supporting
policies following have been effective in providing HE access to non-traditional students.
Significantly, it shows that 150,063 undergraduate students enrolled in 2017 were of a low
SES status. This figure represents 14% of the overall domestic student cohort in 2017,
suggesting that meeting the 20% low SES participation target for all domestic students
enrolled in 2020, as proposed by The Lomas-Smith Review 2011 (Lomax-Smith et al.,
2011), is achievable. However, it was also reported that individuals from major cities are
twice more likely to hold a degree than those from regional or remote areas (Universities
Australia, 2019). Even so, enrolments from regional and remote students has increased by
50% in that ten-year period.
In summary, policy reforms to HE in Australia since 1988 have, in part, achieved
desired outcomes. Australia has seen a significant rise in the number of people gradu-
ating with HE qualifications. Women, those seeking postgraduate qualifications, (see
Australian Government, 2001, 2020a), and those considered socio-economically disad-
vantaged (Universities Australia, 2019) are all success stories. The international
student cohort was a major success story as at the end of 2019 (Universities Australia,
2019). However, two major negatives emerged from the move to mass HE in Australia.
The first major negative is the cost of the HELP portfolio that on 30 June 2017 had a debt
of $55.4 billion. Of that figure, $19.5 billion represented doubtful debt, meaning that the
debt is unlikely to be paid (Norton et al., 2018). Elsworth (2020) reported that at the end
of 2019 the debt to the HELP portfolio had increased and totalled $66.4 billion, and was
owed by 2.89 million Australians. The Australian government continues to look for ways
to manage and reduce this debt and continues to make changes to the loan repayments
system in an attempt to achieve this goal (Australian Government, 2018, 2019b, 2020b).
The second major negative is the flooding of graduates onto the Australian labour
market due to the rapid expansion of HE. This phenomenon has affected the HE
sector. Employers have complained about the lack of suitable graduates (Lindsay,
2015), and other stakeholders have expressed similar concerns (Holmes, 2017). How
policy reforms have contributed to shaping the employment outcomes of graduates of
Australian HEIs is discussed next.
10 L. SMALL ET AL.

Graduate employment outcomes in Australia

In Australia, across the two decades from 1993 to 2013 the number of working Austra-
lians who held a university degree increased from 12.4 to 27.9% (Wilkins & Wooden,
2014). In May 2019, that figure increased again to 33.4% (ABS, 2019b) as was the
intent of the policy reforms. Additionally, in 2013, 20% of the labour force was immi-
grants (Wilkins & Wooden, 2014). The percentage of immigrants increased to 31.7%
in May 2019 (ABS, 2019a), which is not surprising considering the high numbers of inter-
national graduates discussed previously.
However, the unintended statistics that resulted from policy reforms that give rise to
the most concern are those relating to the number of unemployed who hold a university
degree. For example, in May 2016 the number of unemployed in Australia was 715,100.
The number of unemployed with a university degree was 123,700. That is, 17.3% of
unemployed were university graduates. However, in May 2019 the number of unem-
ployed had fallen to 694,900 but the number of unemployed with a university degree
had risen to 129,900, or 18.7% (ABS, 2019b). Such statistics not only support the view
that qualifications no longer assure employment (Mok et al., 2016), they also contribute
to understanding why the debt to the HELP portfolio continues to rise.
The prediction from The Bradley Review (2008) that by 2010 the supply of individuals
holding undergraduate qualifications would not meet the demand has not eventuated.
For example, Graduate Careers Australia (GCA) completed a study of employment
and wage outcomes of 2014 Australian university Bachelor graduates four months
after graduation. While 68.8% were full-time employed, 19.9% were underemployed
and 11.3% were unemployed due to lack of opportunities (GCA, 2015).
In 2019, Social Science Centre (2019b) conducted a similar study of 2019 Australian
university graduates and reported on three study levels; undergraduates, postgraduate
coursework, and postgraduate research. The number of undergraduate graduates in
full-time employment had risen to 72.2%. The overall employment rate was 86.8%,
suggesting that 14.6% were underemployed and 13.2% were unemployed four months
after graduation. Those statistics showed that an increase in full-time employment of
undergraduate graduates was achieved across the five-year period of 2014–2019 as was
a decrease in underemployed undergraduate graduates. Even so, the percentage of unem-
ployed undergraduate graduates rose by almost two per cent across the same period.
Further, while the percentage rates of full-time graduates were provided, no information
was provided as to the type of work the graduates were employed to do and if that work
aligned with the graduates’ areas of study.
The term underemployed relates to individuals who are working fewer hours than
desired and part-time workers who would prefer to work full-time (Healy, 2015). Gradu-
ate underemployment refers to individuals who hold a degree but whose careers com-
mence in work that does not require a degree, rendering a disparity between
education and employment (Okay-Somerville & Scholarios, 2014). The expansion of
HE has given rise to an excess in the supply of graduates that has led to not only a
skills mismatch in employment but may also have led to an erosion of the financial
benefits a university degree once afforded its graduates. While investment in HE may
bring favourable outcomes for some graduates, that is not the case for all graduates
(Tomlinson, 2012).
 HIGHER EDUCATION RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT 11

Additionally, a downward trend in graduate employment has been observed since the
Global Financial Crisis (GFC) in 2008. Employers have indicated the economic climate
and lack of suitable graduates as reasons (Lindsay, 2014). In 2014, GCA conducted
research with 234 graduate recruiters using an on-line survey. Participants represented
employer groups from Accounting/Finance (25.6%), Legal/Professional Services
(23.9%), Government/Defence/Health (22.2%), Construction/Mining/Engineering
(14.1%), Communications/Technology/Utilities (8.1%) and Manufacturing (6%). Of
the participants, 59.9% were from organisations with more than 500 employees and
40.1% were from organisations with fewer than 500 employees. Almost one in four of
the respondents would have employed more graduates had there been suitable graduates
available (Lindsay, 2015).
Further, Table 4 below shows the fall in full-time graduate employment from the
period 2008–2019 for undergraduates, postgraduate coursework, and postgraduate
research graduates (Social Research Centre, 2018; Social Science Centre, 2019b). The
negative change to undergraduate full-time employment was almost twice that of post-
graduate research graduates and nearly four times the negative change experienced by
postgraduate coursework graduates. Social Science Centre (2019b) suggested that gradu-
ates new to the workforce typically encounter more difficulty finding work because they
enter with less work experience.
Since the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) in 2008, some graduates have taken longer
than previously to gain a full-time job (Social Science Centre, 2019a). The 2019 Graduate
Outcomes Survey-Longitudinal (GOS-L) (Social Science Centre, 2019a) demonstrated
that for some, finding full-time graduate employment can take time. The GOS-L
measured and examined the short-term (four months) and medium-term (three years)
outcomes of HE graduates based on a cohort analysis of 42,466 graduates who responded
to both the 2016 Australian Graduate Survey and the 2019 GOS-L. Graduates included
those who completed qualifications from undergraduate, postgraduate coursework and
postgraduate research degrees. Table 5 shows the type of graduate and percentage of
the cohort who were in full-time employment within four months of completing their
degree in 2016 and again in 2019, three years after completing their degree.
In 2016, 86% of individuals who graduated with postgraduate qualifications were in
full-time employment compared to 80.9% of postgraduate research graduates and
72.6% undergraduate graduate, who, in the short term, saw 27.4% of their cohort
either underemployed or unemployed. However, three years later in 2019, the gap in
full-time employment rates had narrowed between these three groups of graduates. In
particular, the full-time employment rate for the undergraduate graduates had improved
significantly, supporting the view that graduates with less work experience often encoun-
ter difficulty when entering the workforce (Social Science Centre, 2019b). However, these
statistics are important because they too demonstrate that a graduate qualification does

Table 4. Change to full-time graduate employment 2008–2019.

Type of graduate 2008 2019 Percentage change
Undergraduates 85.2% 72.2% −13.0
Postgraduate coursework 90.2% 86.8% −3.4
Postgraduate research 87.8% 81.1% −6.7
Source: Social Research Centre (2018); Social Science Centre (2019b).
12 L. SMALL ET AL.

Table 5. Cohort analysis of 2016 graduates’ full-time employment percentages by degree level
N=42,466.
2016 2019
Type of graduate Four months after completion of degree Three years after completion of degree
Undergraduates 72.6% 90.1%
Postgraduates 86.0% 93.0%
Postgraduate research 80.9% 91.0%
Source: Social Science Centre (2019a).

not necessarily result in employment. This in turn demonstrates that policy reforms have
not been successful in meeting all desired outcomes.

Conclusion
This article has chronicled key changes to HE policy in Australia that have, across the
past 30 years, transformed the culture of Australian HE and contributed to shaping
employment outcomes for those graduates. In doing so, this article demonstrates that
although a significant rise in university graduates seeking to enter the workforce has
occurred (Australian Government, 2001, 2019a, 2020a), there has not been a correspond-
ing number of graduate jobs to accommodate them (Social Science Centre, 2019a). While
the end goal of broadening the diversity of the HE cohort has been met, graduates are
taking longer to attain full-time employment (Social Science Centre, 2019a), and the
number of unemployed with a university degree is increasing (ABS, 2019b).
The policies and literature examined and statistics provided suggests that universities,
to some extent, have not been successful in preparing students for the workforce. More
needs to be done to create better outcomes for students, their families and the broader
HE stakeholders, including employers, governments, and the communities they serve.
This article supports the view of Kalfa and Taksa (2015), and Tran (2015) that all stake-
holders, including employers, government agencies, families of graduates, along with HE
alumni, are responsible for assisting graduates with the transition from HE to graduate
employment. As HEIs in Australia and elsewhere grapple with the challenges presented
by the COVID-19 global pandemic, the critical nature of graduate employability will con-
tinue to be under the spotlight.
Consequently, in terms of contributions, this article gives clarity to how the HE land-
scape in Australia came to be just prior to the COVID-19 global pandemic occurring, and
as such, will provide a point of reference when researching graduate employability out-
comes post COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, this article presents a knowledge base for
all stakeholders in the HE sector to draw from in terms of policy and planning, with the
end goal to enhance the employment prospects and employability of HE graduates.
Further, this article may assist governments and HE institutions worldwide to consider
more broadly how best to manage the HE landscape while meeting the economic and
educational aims of the country.
As a result of this article, four future research studies are suggested. Firstly, future
research about the effects of the COVID-19 global pandemic on graduate employability
in Australia and elsewhere is necessary. Secondly, future research may then examine sol-
utions to enhance employability and improve employment outcomes for graduates of the
Australian HE sector and elsewhere. Thirdly, future research may conduct a comparative
 HIGHER EDUCATION RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT 13

analysis of Australian graduate outcomes to that of graduate outcomes from other

western countries’ HE systems, which will help establish strategies and global bench-
marks for improving graduate outcomes. Finally, future research may explore factors
not directly linked to HE outcomes that impact graduate employability and graduate out-
comes. Such factors may include personal factors including health and physical appear-
ance, personal circumstances and external factors.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

ORCID
Lynlea Small http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3321-4019
Ruth Mcphail http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8334-8533
Amie Shaw http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2664-1765

References
ABS. (2019a, May). Labour force, Australia, detailed – electronic delivery. Cataluge number
6291.0.55.001. Retrieved July 21, 2019, from https://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/
allprimarymainfeatures/16CF9AD7C2477BA5CA257F630014C8C0?opendocument
ABS. (2019b, May). Labour force, Australia, detailed, quarterly. Catalogue number 6291.0.55.003.
Retrieved July 21, 2019, from https://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/allprimarymainfea
tures/5F60A449AE6DE5F6CA258090000ED52A?opendocument
Artess, J., Hooley, T., & Mellors-Bourne, R. (2017). Employability: A review of the literature 2012 to
2016.
Australian Government. (2001). Higher education students time series tables 2000. Retrieved April 13,
2016, from http://www.education.gov.au/selected-higher-education-statistics-time-series-data
Australian Government. (2003). The higher education contribution scheme. Retrieved February
10, 2020, from https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/
Parliamentary_Library/Publications_Archive/archive/hecs
Australian Government. (2015). Higher Education in Australia: A review of reviews from Dawkins
to today. Retrieved March 15, 2020, from https://docs.education.gov.au/documents/higher-
education-australia
Australian Government. (2018). StudyAssist Loan Repayment. Retrieved August 13, 2018, from
https://www.studyassist.gov.au/paying-back-my-loan/loan-repayment
Australian Government. (2019a). 2018 Section 14 Award course completions. Department of
Education Retrieved November 24, 2019, from https://docs.education.gov.au/documents/
2018-section-14-award-course-completions
Australian Government. (2019b). Study and training loan repayment thresholds and rates.
Retrieved July 1, 2019, from https://www.ato.gov.au/Rates/HELP,-TSL-and-SFSS-repayment-
thresholds-and-rates/#HELPandTSLrepaymentthresholdsandrates201
Australian Government. (2020a). 2019 Section 14 Award course completions. Department of
Education Retrieved November 11, 2020, from https://docs.education.gov.au/documents/
2019-section-14-award-course-completions
Australian Government. (2020b). StudyAssist loan repayment. Retrieved February 10, 2020, from
http://studyassist.gov.au/sites/studyassist/payingbackmyloan/loan-repayment/pages/loan-repa
yment
14 L. SMALL ET AL.

AWPA. (2013). Future focus: 2013 national workforce development strategy. Australian Workforce
and Productivity Agency. Retrieved February 10, 2015, from https://docs.education.gov.au/
system/files/doc/other/futurefocus2013nwds-2013.pdf
Barach, Y. (2015). The career impact of management education from an average-ranked univer-
sity: Human capital perspective. Career Development International, 20(3), 218–237. https://
doi.org/10.1108/CDI-08-2014-0117
Bradley, D. (2008). Review of Australian higher eduction final report. Australian Government.
Chapman, B., & Ryan, C. (2002). Income-contingent financing of student charges for higher edu-
cation: Assessing the Australian Innovation.
Coates, H. (2015). Working on a dream: Educational returns from off-campus paid work. Journal
of Education and Work, 28(1), 66–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080.2013.802835
Dawkins, J. (1988). Higher education: A policy statement. Commonwealth of Australia.
Dawkins, J. (1990). A fair chance for all: Higher education that’s within everyone’s reach.
Department of Employment, Education and Training.
Elsworth, S. (2020). Students are being forced to pay back their study loans sooner. Retrieved
February 11, 2020, from https://www.news.com.au/finance/students-owe-billions-of-dollars-
in-university-debts-and-this-is-how-to-pay-it-back-in-full/news-story/
cda27ae278a50b2a2601396ed019a42b
GCA. (2015). Gradstats: Employment and salary outcomes of recent higher education graduates –
survey highlights. Graduate Careers Australia Ltd.
Harvey, L. (2000). New realities: The relationship between higher education and employment.
Tertiary Education and Management, 6(1), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/13583883.2000.
9967007
Healy, J. (2015). The Australian labour market in 2014: Still ill? Journal of Industrial Relations, 57
(3), 348–365. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022185615571981
Hogan, T. (2016). Coming of age: Griffith University in the unified national system. Melbourne
University Publishing.
Hogan, R., Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Kaiser, R. (2013). Employability and career success:
Bridging the gap between theory and reality. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 6(1),
3–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/iops.12001
Holmes, L. (2017). Graduate employability: Future directions and debate. In M. Tomlinson & L.
Holmes (Eds.), Graduate employability in context: Theory, research and debate (pp. 359–370).
Palgrave Macmillan.
Kalfa, S., & Taksa, L. (2015). Cultural capital in business higher education: Reconsidering the
graduate attributes movement and the focus on employability. Studies in Higher Education,
40(4), 580–595. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2013.842210
Kemp, D., & Norton, A. (2014). Review of the demand driven funding system. Retrieved March 15,
2020, from https://docs.education.gov.au/node/35537
Lindsay, E. (2014). Graduate Outlook 2013. The report of the graduate outlook survey: Employers’
perspectives on graduate recruitment. http://www.graduatecareers.com.au/wp-content/uploads/
2014/03/Graduate_Outlook_2013.pdf
Lindsay, E. (2015). Graduate Outlook 2014: Employers’ perspectives on graduate recruitment in
Australia. http://www.graduatecareers.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Graduate_Outloo
k_2014.pdf
Lomax-Smith, J., Watson, L., & Webster, B. (2011). Higher Education Base Funding Review: Final
report Retrieved Macrh 15, 2020, from https://www.canberra.edu.au/research/archived/
edinstitute/documents/HigherEd_FundingReviewReport1.pdf
Mackenzie, N., & Knipe, S. (2006). Research dilemmas: Paradigms, methods and methodology.
Issues in Educational Research, 16(2), 193–205. Retrieved November 12, 2016, from http://
www.iier.org.au/iier16/mackenzie.html
Marginson, S. (2004). National and global competition in higher education. The Australian
Educational Researcher, 31(2), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03249517
Mok, K., Wen, Z., & Dale, R. (2016). Employability and mobility in the valorisation of higher edu-
cation qualifications: The experiences and reflections of Chinese students and graduates.
 HIGHER EDUCATION RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT 15

Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 38(3), 264–281. https://doi.org/10.1080/

1360080X.2016.1174397
Moore, T., & Morton, J. (2017). The myth of job readiness? Written communication, employabil-
ity, and the ‘skills gap’ in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 42(3), 591–609. https://
doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1067602
Nelson, B. (2003). Our universities: Backing Australia’s future. Commonwealth Department of
Education, Science and Training.
Norton, A., Cherastidthan, I., & Mackey, W. (2018). Mapping Australian higher education 2018.
Retrieved September 23, 2018, from file:///C:/Users/Lynlea/Documents/
G_Drive_Griffith_13082018/G_Drive_Griffith/WIL20for20PhD/Grattan%20Report_Mapping-
Australian-higher-education-2018.pdf
Okay-Somerville, B., & Scholarios, D. (2014). Coping with career boundaries and boundary-cross-
ing in the graduate labour market. Career Development International, 19(6), 668–682. https://
doi.org/10.1108/CDI-12-2013-0144
Pick, D. (2006). The re-framing of Australian higher education. Higher Education Quarterly, 60(3),
229–241. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2273.2006.00319.x
Schuetze, H., & Slowey, M. (2002). Participation and exclusion: A comparative analysis of non-tra-
ditional students and lifelong learners in higher education. Higher Education, 44(3/4), 309–327.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019898114335
Small, L., Shacklock, K., & Marchant, T. (2018). Employability: A contemporary review for higher
education stakeholders. Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 70(1), 148–166. https://
doi.org/10.1080/13636820.2017.1394355
Smith, C., Ferns, S., Russell, L., & Cretchely, P. (2014). The impact of work integrated learning on
student work-readiness. Final report [Australian Government Office for Learning and Teaching
(OLT)]. https://espace.curtin.edu.au/handle/20.500.11937/55398
Social Research Centre. (2018). 2017 Graduate Outcomes Survey: National Report. Retrieved
September 10, 2018, from https://www.qilt.edu.au/about-this-site/graduate-employment
Social Science Centre. (2019a). 2019 Graduate Outcomes Survey – Longitudinal (GOS-L).
Retrieved February 10, 2020, from https://www.qilt.edu.au/docs/default-source/gos-reports/
2019-gos-l/2019-gos-l-national-report.pdf?sfvrsn=63fdec3c_4
Social Science Centre. (2019b). 2019 Graduate Outcomes Survey (GOS) National Report.
Retrieved February 10, 2020, from https://www.qilt.edu.au/docs/default-source/gos-reports/
2019-gos/2019-gos-national-report.pdf?sfvrsn=cdceec3c_4
Tomlinson, M. (2012). Graduate employability: A review of conceptual and empirical themes.
Higher Education Policy, 25(4), 407–431. https://doi.org/10.1057/hep.2011.26
Tomlinson, M. (2017). Introduction: Graduate employability in context: Charting a complex, con-
tested and multi-faceted policy and research field. In M. Tomlinson & L. Holmes (Eds.),
Graduate employability in context: Theory, research and debate (pp. 1–40). Palgrave Macmillan.
Tran, T. (2015). Is graduate employability the ‘whole-of-highereducation-issue’? Journal of
Education and Work, 28(3), 207–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080.2014.900167
Universities Australia. (2019). Data Snapshot. Retrieved August 14, 2019, from https://www.
universitiesaustralia.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Data-snapshot-2019-FINAL.pdf
West, R. (1998). Learning for Life: Review of higher education financing and policy.
Wilkins, R., & Wooden, M. (2014). Two decades of change: The Australian labour market, 1993–
2013. Australian Economic Review, 47(4), 417–431. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8462.12085
Yorke, M., & Harvey, L. (2005). Graduate attributes and their development. New Directions for
Institutional Research, 2005(128), 41–58. https://doi.org/10.1002/ir.162