The learned Andrew Norton explains the Australian version to the Brits in a new paper for the Higher Education Policy Institute, where it came from, where it went

It is Mr Norton’s usual acute analysis, which should not be surprising. With David Kemp, he reviewed the system in 2014, for then minister Chris Pyne and made a definitive case for keeping it. His argument can apply to England, which still has its own version of DDF.

Mr Norton’s position in his new paper now is much what it always has been – the system worked.

“In the long run, history suggests that both block grant and demand driven systems respond to major shifts in demand for higher education. But demand driven funding does so more smoothly, letting demographic shifts quickly translate into higher education opportunities. Demand driven funding allows enrolment shares between universities and disciplines to change more quickly than is likely with block grants.”