The point the article is trying to make which you seem to not quite understand is this. Education market was changed from the previous model where the underlying philosophy was that people with the ability and desire to gain tertiary education could gain higher skills largely at the expense of the taxpayer and would on average return that investment by delivering increased productivity.

For many decades this model had worked but it did not align with the neoliberal market forces dogma well and so the new model based on a fake free market was introduced.

The change to a 'free market' model while still largely overseen and funded by government created a different model where a market model is imposed but it is not a true free market but a fake one- one where the incentives for education providers are perverse and driven by parameters that do not serve the long term best interests of the economy because incentives rather favour providers who provide volume not quality.