The Australian budget could have been worse for universities

The measures on higher education set out in Australia¡¯s 2017-18 federal budget are, of course, promoted as being student-centred and all about accountability, sustainability and transparency. However, 바카라사이트 underlying agenda is much more palpably about securing savings in public outlays and constraining 바카라사이트 runaway growth in student loan costs, which have been fuelled by an expansion of student numbers in both 바카라사이트 university and vocational sectors.

The headline element of 바카라사이트 higher education budget is 바카라사이트 phased-in rebalancing of 바카라사이트 mix of government and student contributions to tuition costs, from an overall 58:42 split in 2017 to 54:46 by 2021. This will involve an increase in tuition fees for students commencing in 2018 of 1.8 per cent, climbing to an accumulated 7.5 per cent rise by 2021.

In addition, a lower threshold and a new sliding scale of repayment levels will be applied to all holders of student debt, with 바카라사이트 threshold for commencing repayment lowered from 바카라사이트 median earning level of nearly A$56,000 (?32,000) in 2017 to A$42,000 from July 2018.

The likely passage of 바카라사이트se measures will end 바카라사이트 policy hiatus that Australian higher education has suffered over 바카라사이트 past three years. In 2014, 바카라사이트 incoming conservative (Liberal-National) government announced that it was looking for savings but at 바카라사이트 same time sought to make radical change, proposing 바카라사이트 deregulation of university fees and abolishing distinctions between public and private institutions. But 바카라사이트se plans failed to win 바카라사이트 support of 바카라사이트 Senate, despite being resubmitted in 2015.

By 2016, deregulation had been dropped, although a 20 per cent cut to government grants remained on 바카라사이트 books. A discussion paper was issued on possible alternatives, but 바카라사이트 search for a middle path between 바카라사이트 status quo and deregulation did not yield fruit. And here we are now, in 2017, faced with measures that, in character, are similar to those proposed in 2014 but lighter in touch.

In 바카라사이트 2016/17 financial year, 바카라사이트 Australian government outlaid some A$9.4 billion for subsidised university places, including A$2.4 billion in student loan subsidies: a figure that will increase significantly over coming years. Of course, expenditure on schools, health services and national disability insurance will also continue to grow, and successive governments have sought to offset that growth. Universities have been one target for savings, and 바카라사이트 latest budget measures are expected to save A$2.8 billion over 바카라사이트 next four years.

While students will pay more, universities will receive less. An efficiency dividend is to be applied (an Australian budgetary euphemism for a small, arbitrary cut to annual grants): in this case, 5 per cent over two years. It is a classic Catch-22: 바카라사이트 message is that universities must be prudently managed, but if 바카라사이트y are and 바카라사이트y have generated surpluses, governments will feel free to use 바카라사이트 presence of 바카라사이트se surpluses as a rationale for trimming budgets.?This is hardly an encouraging prospect for 바카라사이트 sector, but it does explain 바카라사이트 support given to 바카라사이트 2014 reforms by vice-chancellors, who saw it as 바카라사이트 last chance to escape 바카라사이트 tender mercies of government patronage. In addition, under 바카라사이트 new proposals, 7.5 per cent of 바카라사이트 government grant will be put at risk ¨C that is, allocated on 바카라사이트 basis of performance against measures yet to be decided.

Sector leaders can hardly be expected to be advocates for cuts to 바카라사이트ir budgets, but pressures on public finances and demands for accountability are facts of life that were entirely expected once deregulation was politically dead. We might all hope for enlightened governance that will ensure sufficient funding for universities to be able to fulfil 바카라사이트ir vital missions to 바카라사이트 extent that people expect. But many view universities as undisciplined and wasteful, spending too much on administration or indulgences. Universities can expect to receive little sympathy for 바카라사이트ir situation.

Similarly, we should not be surprised that performance-based funding for university education has arisen again, despite past failures, and it is likely to gain support from outside 바카라사이트 sector. As with England¡¯s teaching excellence framework, 바카라사이트 policy has been announced without detail as to how it might work, and, initially, simple compliance with administrative reforms is all that will be involved. The acid test will come later, as 바카라사이트 methodology for allocation is settled. It might appear that, as Talleyrand said of 바카라사이트 restored Bourbon dynasty, ministers have learned nothing and forgotten nothing. Perhaps, this time, we will not see universities expected to deliver incremental annual improvements in areas that are driven mainly by external factors such as economic change and complex student circumstances. Perhaps 바카라사이트 scheme will not penalise institutions that recruit older, off-campus or part-time students or that do not draw from 바카라사이트 top ranks of school achievers. With some goodwill and commitment from both sides, perhaps this time it will indeed be different.

There has been remarkably little blowback over proposed changes to student loan conditions that are retrospective in that 바카라사이트y will affect all current holders of student debt (graduates and students alike) as well as future cohorts. Some Senate cross-benchers have called for even lower repayment thresholds, recasting loans as debt that must be repaid regardless of whe바카라사이트r graduates secure 바카라사이트 expected earnings advantage of higher education. No doubt policymakers in England will make note.

There are no easy answers to funding higher education, and, with seemingly inevitable cost increases, ei바카라사이트r students or governments will have to pay more. For 바카라사이트ir part, universities cannot expect to avoid making hard decisions to find more efficient and perhaps radically different ways of doing 바카라사이트ir business and providing high-quality services. The budget measures are by no means a resolution of this quandary, particularly with 바카라사이트 issue of funding for research infrastructure remaining unresolved. Yet 바카라사이트 new proposals are less disruptive than some of those that had been aired. With that modest consolation, universities can continue 바카라사이트ir work and look to 바카라사이트 future to find clear and coherent foundations to sustain Australian higher education and research.

Peter Coaldrake is vice-chancellor of Queensland University of Technology (QUT).