campusreview. com. au
VC’ S CORNER
For universities across the country, the 2016 federal election is shaping up to be amongst the most important in recent memory.
Only five days after Treasurer Scott Morrison handed down the 2016 Budget, the prime minister requested that the governor-general dissolve both houses of Parliament, in advance of a double dissolution election to be held on July 2 – the first double dissolution since 1987. With the government having decided to consult with the higher-education sector in advance of implementing reform in 2018, and the opposition emphasising the need for additional public investment, there is now at least some clarity over the higher education platforms on which the major parties will campaign.
That both sides of politics seem to have finally recognised the current funding arrangements for our universities no longer work is a great relief. Indeed, the higher education sector has been desperately looking to both the Coalition and Labor for fiscal certainty for almost a decade. It is thus to the education minister, Simon Birmingham’ s, great credit that he used this year’ s Budget to deliver on the government’ s‘ no surprises in higher education’ promise, something that was sorely needed following the chaos of Joe Hockey’ s 2014 Budget.
Specifically, Birmingham has taken full fee deregulation off the table, and delayed the implementation of any major changes until 2018( assuming Senate support can be gained). Alongside this, he has reopened consultation with the sector through the release of an options paper, seeking a way forward that balances the government’ s need to be fiscally prudent with Australia’ s need for a world-class education system that is fair and equitable.
It is pleasing that universities now have the desired breathing space to work with the government in developing a policy framework that will put them on a secure and sustainable financial footing. However, while the sector recognises the difficult challenge the government faces in returning the Budget to surplus, it is enormously disappointing to see that the 20 per cent cut to higher education funding originally announced in 2014 and twice blocked by the Senate remains official policy.
These cuts, amounting to upwards of $ 2.5 billion, along with a $ 152 million cut to the Higher Education Participation and
Partnerships Programme( HEPPP), and the abolition of the Office of Teaching and Learning, seem counterintuitive for a government that has repeatedly stressed its commitment to innovation.
Predictions state that 5 million lower-skilled jobs will be lost over the next decade, due to advances in technology; universities will be critical to the process of transitioning our economy from a resources one to a knowledge one. This transition will be driven largely by the cutting-edge research at our universities, and the skilled graduates they produce. The options paper, and the election campaign more generally, will consequently provide both the government and the opposition an opportunity to demonstrate that they are willing to back up their respective visions for a knowledge economy with funding that recognises the economic and public benefits of a highly skilled workforce. It is crucial that politicians across the spectrum understand that a well-funded system will support the commercialisation of existing research and provide a stronger basis for future innovation. A better-funded system will lift the standard of Australia’ s teaching, as well as the quality of its research facilities. These are two critical factors in retaining and nurturing the talent we need to spearhead our innovation drive.
For Australian universities to maximise the contribution they make to innovation and the economy, they need three things. The first of these is that funding provided for government-prioritised research needs to reflect such work’ s actual cost. At present, universities face enormous challenges meeting the full costs of publicly funded research, and are increasingly forced to cross-subsidise this work by diverting funding from teaching. At the University of Sydney, this amounts to at least 30 cents in every discretionary dollar we earn, adding up to more than $ 250 million dollars a year. This is clearly not a viable long-term solution, and needs to be addressed comprehensively in any serious policy reform.
Second, money allocated for courses that the review of base funding by Dr Jane Lomax-Smith recognised as underfunded( such as medicine, dentistry, veterinary science, agriculture, and the visual and performing arts) bears little relationship to the actual costs of delivering these courses to students – and that needs to change. The government’ s commitment to look again at the adequacy of funding between disciplines is, therefore, welcome. However, without reforms to allow overall levels of funding per student to be increased periodically, so as to reflect the reasonable costs of quality provision, the long-term quality, sustainability and international competitiveness of our higher education system is at risk.
Third, our most disadvantaged students need to be adequately supported, to ensure that the innovation economy is not restricted to those from privileged backgrounds. As any leader in higher education knows, it’ s not course fees that stop students from low-socioeconomic demographics from attending our elite universities( thanks to our HECS system). Rather, it is the prohibitively expensive cost of meeting basic living expenses whilst studying. Indeed, part of the reason that as vice-chancellor of the University of Sydney I lent my support to former education minister Christopher Pyne’ s 2014 deregulation package was that it would have delivered us the requisite funds to provide unprecedented financial support to underprivileged students( under a deregulated system, the University of Sydney would have been able to provide financial assistance to about one-third of all undergraduate students). In an environment where public funding for universities has been tightened, it is more important than ever to ensure that any reform arising from the options paper or elsewhere guarantees that our best universities remain within reach of all students, regardless of their financial background.
Given that both full deregulation and significantly increased public funding are off the table for the foreseeable future, it falls to our political leaders to find a combination of government and student contributions that will generate the resources needed to sustain our system. It’ s a great thing for Australia that university funding will be at the forefront of our national conversation throughout the election. However, it is important that once the hysteria of the campaign has died down, the incumbent government – whichever it may be – endeavours to work closely with universities to ensure that the nation’ s best and brightest are not let down by inactivity and indecision. The sector stands ready to assist both the government and opposition in securing the future of our proud institutions. ■
Dr Michael Spence is the vice-chancellor and principal of the University of Sydney.
17