[Cyberbob]

Isn't there some massive leaps in logic there to reach those conclusions?

Tertiary enrollment declined for every demographic and ethnic group, but slightly more so in low socio-economic or poorer communities. (resulting in the "students from wealthier backgrounds making up an increasingly greater share.") therefore, it's not worth covering the first year, and instead let's cover the last year?

It would appear to me that it's not incentivizing additional signups, and more or less the same students would be either seeking or choosing to not seek tertiary education regardless of whether any particular year is fully funded or student loan funded. You're just giving it to those that could fund/borrow their way into courses either way.

If someone doesn't think they can fund year 2 and 3, they're not going to sign up to a three year bachelor course just to get the first year free.

Funding the third year's no better, because it assumes they can fund year 1 and 2.