The Claim
“Spent more money per student on homeopathy, flower essence therapy and naturopathy tertiary courses than law, economics, languages and humanities.”
Original Sources Provided
✅ FACTUAL VERIFICATION
The claim references a proposal in the Abbott government's higher education reforms from early 2015. According to a Sydney Morning Herald report from January 10, 2015, the government's proposed reforms would have made accredited private colleges eligible for Commonwealth Supported Places (CSPs) grants of $6,323 per year for each student enrolled in courses such as homeopathy, naturopathy, and mind body medicine [1].
This amount would have been more than what public universities would have received per student studying law, economics, languages, or humanities under the proposed new funding structure [1].
However, it is critical to note that these reforms were proposed but never actually implemented. The Abbott government's higher education reforms, introduced by Education Minister Christopher Pyne, were blocked by the Senate in December 2014 and again in subsequent attempts [2, 3]. The reforms never passed into law, meaning the funding disparity described in the claim never actually materialized.
The proposed reforms were part of a broader package that included:
- Deregulating university fees
- Cutting university funding by 20%
- Extending CSP funding to private colleges, TAFEs, and sub-bachelor degree programs at a projected cost of $820 million over three years [1]
Missing Context
The claim omits several crucial facts:
These were PROPOSED reforms, not enacted policy: The claim frames this as something the government "spent," implying actual expenditure occurred. In reality, this was a proposal in legislation that never passed the Senate [2, 3].
The reforms were defeated: The Senate voted down the government's higher education changes in December 2014, delivering a significant blow to the Abbott government's reform agenda [2]. Pyne attempted to negotiate compromises but ultimately failed to secure crossbench support [3].
Scientific context matters: The article was published shortly after the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) released its comprehensive review in March 2015 (with work beginning earlier), which found no compelling evidence that homeopathy is effective for treating any health conditions [4]. The irony of taxpayer funding for pseudoscientific courses was highlighted by medical experts at the time.
The funding discrepancy was a structural feature: The $6,323 figure for private college students in these courses exceeded the funding rates for traditional humanities and social science disciplines at public universities, creating an inequity that critics argued prioritized pseudoscience over established academic disciplines [1].
Private colleges already received government support: Students at these colleges already had access to government loans (FEE-HELP) but were required to pay full fees. The reform would have added direct Commonwealth subsidies on top of loan access [1].
Source Credibility Assessment
The original source is the Sydney Morning Herald (SMH), a mainstream Australian newspaper owned by Fairfax Media. The SMH is generally considered a reputable, center-left publication with established journalistic standards [1]. The article was written by Matthew Knott, a political correspondent.
The SMH is not a partisan advocacy organization, though like all media outlets, it has editorial perspectives. This particular article presents factual reporting with direct quotes from:
- Professor John Dwyer (Emeritus Professor of Medicine at UNSW, president of Friends of Science in Medicine)
- Gilliane Burford (CEO of Paramount College of Natural Medicine - providing industry perspective)
- Senator Kim Carr (Labor higher education spokesman - opposition perspective)
- Education Minister Christopher Pyne (government perspective)
- TEQSA chief commissioner Nicholas Saunders (regulatory perspective)
The article provides a balanced range of views, making it a credible source for the factual claims about the proposed funding structure. However, the headline's framing as "taxpayers to fund" could be seen as misleading since the reforms never actually passed.
Labor Comparison
Did Labor do something similar?
Labor had previously expanded vocational education access, but with notable differences in approach:
VET FEE-HELP expansion: The Rudd/Gillard government did expand the VET FEE-HELP scheme, which was originally introduced by the Howard government in 2007 and extended by Labor to provide income-contingent loans for vocational diploma and advanced diploma courses [5]. However, this was loans-only (not direct subsidies) and was later found to have significant rorting issues that cost billions when providers exploited the system [6].
University funding approach: Under Labor (2007-2013), Commonwealth Supported Places were generally limited to public universities and certain accredited providers, with a focus on demand-driven funding that expanded university places without extending CSPs to private for-profit colleges teaching alternative therapies.
Reviews under both governments: The SMH article notes that "major reviews under both the Rudd and Abbott governments had backed extending federal funding to private providers, saying it would correct the historical anomaly that only students in one system receive support" [1]. This suggests the policy direction had bipartisan support at the review level, though the implementation differed.
Key difference: Labor's Kim Carr explicitly criticized the Coalition's proposal as "illogical" for cutting health insurance rebates for alternative treatments while extending funding to colleges teaching them [1]. This suggests Labor would not have pursued this specific policy combination.
The VET FEE-HELP scandal that emerged under the Abbott government (with rorting by private colleges) demonstrated the risks of extending government funding to for-profit vocational providers without adequate safeguards [6].
Balanced Perspective
Policy Rationale:
The Abbott government argued that extending Commonwealth Supported Places to private colleges and sub-bachelor programs would:
- Correct a "historical anomaly" where only public university students received direct subsidies [1]
- Increase competition and choice in higher education
- Provide pathways for students who might not access traditional universities
Criticisms and Legitimate Concerns:
- Medical experts, including Professor John Dwyer, argued it was "absolutely unacceptable" to fund pseudoscientific courses with taxpayer money, especially when the NHMRC had found no evidence for homeopathy's effectiveness [1, 4]
- The funding disparity ($6,323 for naturopathy vs. lower rates for law/economics/humanities) created perverse incentives that critics argued prioritized pseudoscience over established academic disciplines
- TEQSA (Tertiary Education Quality Standards Agency) was criticized for accrediting these courses in the first place [1]
What the claim doesn't acknowledge:
- The proposal never became law - no actual "spending" occurred at these rates
- Both major governments had, at various points, supported expanding funding to private providers
- Some legitimate universities (UTS, RMIT) also offered complementary medicine courses, though they emphasized evidence-based approaches and did not teach homeopathy or iridology [1]
- The context of broader higher education reform that was defeated, not a standalone policy
MISLEADING
4.0
out of 10
The claim uses present-tense language ("spent") to describe something that was proposed but never implemented. The Abbott government's higher education reforms, which included the funding rates cited in the claim, were blocked by the Senate in December 2014 and never became law [2, 3].
While the numerical comparison ($6,323 for alternative medicine vs. lower rates for traditional humanities/law/economics) was accurate in the context of the proposed legislation [1], describing this as money that was "spent" creates a false impression that the policy was enacted and funds were disbursed. No such spending occurred.
Additionally, the claim omits the critical context that these reforms were defeated, that they were part of a broader deregulation package, and that the NHMRC had recently found no scientific evidence supporting homeopathy's effectiveness.
Final Score
4.0
OUT OF 10
MISLEADING
The claim uses present-tense language ("spent") to describe something that was proposed but never implemented. The Abbott government's higher education reforms, which included the funding rates cited in the claim, were blocked by the Senate in December 2014 and never became law [2, 3].
While the numerical comparison ($6,323 for alternative medicine vs. lower rates for traditional humanities/law/economics) was accurate in the context of the proposed legislation [1], describing this as money that was "spent" creates a false impression that the policy was enacted and funds were disbursed. No such spending occurred.
Additionally, the claim omits the critical context that these reforms were defeated, that they were part of a broader deregulation package, and that the NHMRC had recently found no scientific evidence supporting homeopathy's effectiveness.
📚 SOURCES & CITATIONS (6)
-
1
smh.com.au
Profit-making colleges would receive taxpayer funding to teach students unproven alternative remedies such as homeopathy, flower essence therapy and iridology under the Abbott government's proposed higher education reforms.
The Sydney Morning Herald -
2
theconversation.com
The Senate has defeated the government’s plan to deregulate university fees 34 votes to 30, with Labor, the Greens and five of the other eight crossbenchers combining against it.
The Conversation -
3
abc.net.au
Education Minister Christopher Pyne says the Government is disappointed but will not be deterred after the Senate rejects a push to let universities set their own fees.
Abc Net -
4
theconversation.com
The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) has released its long-awaited review of homeopathy, as well as a tip sheet for doctors to talk to their patient about complementary medicines in…
The Conversation -
5
parlinfo.aph.gov.au
Parlinfo Aph Gov
-
6
anao.gov.au
Anao Gov
Rating Scale Methodology
1-3: FALSE
Factually incorrect or malicious fabrication.
4-6: PARTIAL
Some truth but context is missing or skewed.
7-9: MOSTLY TRUE
Minor technicalities or phrasing issues.
10: ACCURATE
Perfectly verified and contextually fair.
Methodology: Ratings are determined through cross-referencing official government records, independent fact-checking organizations, and primary source documents.