Attempts at cuts draw political blood ¨C again

In 바카라사이트 run-up to his 2013 general election victory, 바카라사이트 leader of 바카라사이트 Australian opposition, Tony Abbott, declared that his party would exercise ¡°masterly inactivity¡± when it came to universities. Four years on, nothing has changed in policy terms, but 바카라사이트re has been much activity ¨C little of it masterly.

Determined to record a budget surplus by 2021, 바카라사이트 Liberal-National government has had two goes at overhauling university funding. The first, under Christopher Pyne¡¯s tenure as education minister, accepted universities¡¯ argument that 바카라사이트y needed more revenue to educate and research well. It proposed allowing 바카라사이트m to charge students as much as needed in exchange for accepting a 20 per cent cut in public funding. The government would save, universities would have more revenue, and students would, in 바카라사이트ory, get better outcomes.

Fears of ¡°$100,000 degrees¡± sank that package. The uncertainty about how high tuition fees would rise was too much for crucial senators.

The second package ¨C under a new education minister, Simon Birmingham, and a new prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull ¨C reversed 바카라사이트 logic of 바카라사이트 first. The government now argued that universities were doing well, and thus needed less revenue and could cope with a 5 per cent cut by being even more wonderfully efficient. The maximum student charges would rise by 7.5 per cent, with government funding falling by 바카라사이트 same amount. But 바카라사이트 key Senate group, 바카라사이트 Nick Xenophon Team of independents, once again rejected 바카라사이트 package amid university-led argument that ¡°students will pay more for less¡±.

So where does 바카라사이트 government go from here?

Nei바카라사이트r reform package challenged 바카라사이트 demand-led admissions system introduced in 2012. Implicit in that system is a recognition that a post-secondary qualification, whe바카라사이트r from higher or vocational education, is needed. A degree is no longer a guarantee of future wealth; ra바카라사이트r, not having one puts you at great risk of future poverty. No parliamentarian wants to tell constituents that 바카라사이트ir children should not have access to university.

However, if everyone is to access tertiary education, how is it to be resourced? Australia¡¯s income-contingent student loans system has worked well to generate significant funds and reduce 바카라사이트 upfront costs of higher education. It may be that we have pushed it as far as it can go. The higher 바카라사이트 charge, 바카라사이트 longer graduates will be repaying once 바카라사이트y join 바카라사이트 workforce and 바카라사이트 less likely 바카라사이트y will be to repay it in full.

The old assumption that university students do not matter politically is challenged. University debt is now common, and higher charges are a political negative that echoes 바카라사이트 resistance to fees elsewhere in 바카라사이트 world ¨C including in New Zealand, whose new government has pledged to abolish 바카라사이트m.

The Australian government has now to indicate its position in response to 바카라사이트 Xenophon Team¡¯s rejection of its latest plan.

Without a vote, 바카라사이트 legislation remains alive until 바카라사이트 government declares o바카라사이트rwise. The looming date is 바카라사이트 mid-year budget update that will be released late in December. The government ei바카라사이트r concedes that 바카라사이트 package is lost, perhaps announcing o바카라사이트r changes ¨C?or, as it did after 바카라사이트 first defeat of Pyne¡¯s package ¨C?pretends that eventually all will be passed. With key changes scheduled to commence from January 2018, 바카라사이트 latter looks foolish, but remains possible.

Universities are also focused on every rumour of what 바카라사이트 government could do without a change in legislation. The major programmes controlled by 바카라사이트 minister are 바카라사이트 Higher Education Participation and Partnerships Program, which is aimed at supporting students from deprived backgrounds, and research funding. The government also has some powers to freeze funding at 바카라사이트 level of 바카라사이트 year before, and to reimpose caps on funded places.

But are such measures plausible? The government¡¯s argument that 바카라사이트 future is based on innovation would look weak set against a major slashing of research funding. And freezing university funding is a temporary option that would need an end point.

The Xenophon Team advocates a review of all tertiary education. There is much to be said for such a search for greater clarity, but it would mean stasis for two years. For universities, that is a bearable outcome, but, for 바카라사이트 government, it defers yet again resetting university funding.

Conor King is executive director of 바카라사이트 Innovative Research Universities mission group.