Sounding off on reform – again

Calls to scrap the Coalition’s higher education reforms and start afresh have been met with warnings that to do so would jeopardise Australia’s leading global position in higher education in submissions to the latest Senate inquiry into the government’s proposed legislation. The latest inquiry is due to report in mid-March, and universities and other higher-education providers have once again offered their thoughts. In his submission, University of Canberra vice-chancellor professor Stephen Parker argued that the revised version of the government’s bill would ultimately cost taxpayers and the government more money. Parker argued that the government would be better off doing nothing than to pursue either its current proposed legislation or the bill the Senate rejected last year. Universities Australia, however, reissued its overall support for the government’s reform agenda, reasoning in its submission that “in the absence of any strong commitment to increased public investment, discarding the higher education reform proposals in their entirety would jeopardise Australia’s global position as a leading provider of higher education and research excellence”. UA’s support was conditional. It depends upon a raft of amendments to the current bill, including the government relenting on its plans to reduce overall funding to universities via the Commonwealth Grant Scheme. The university peak body also called for a five-fold increase of the $100 million allocated in the bill to help universities adjust to deregulated fees and for an independent panel to advise the government on implementing deregulation. Australian Catholic University renewed calls for federal funding to non-university higher education providers (NUHEP) essentially to be frozen at existing levels, arguing that in the current “strained fiscal environment” taxpayer dollars would be better used supporting public services. “Any Commonwealth funding extended to NUHEPs should be 60 per cent lower than the funding provided to universities, to account for the different nature of the work universities do and the additional responsibilities incurred by universities in their ordinary operations,” the ACU submission read. “If Commonwealth funding is extended to NUHEPs, then they should be required to participate in the Commonwealth Scholarships Scheme.” The University of South Australia appeared to back ACU in its submission, stating that the majority of private providers were “attracting students with low ATARs, who are not adequately prepared for further study”, and that “opening up the market may lead to significantly higher rates of attrition”. TAFE Directors Australia seemed to back the government’s latest bill without any new amendments, stating that the resulting opening up of funding would help TAFEs reduce attrition rates. “TAFE has a high percentage of students who progress from VET to higher education,” the TDA submission read. “Given the fastest growth (153 per cent) in university admissions has been at lower ATAR ranks (30–49), the supportive learning environments provided by TAFE can contribute to reduced student drop-out rates and the subsequent impact on public expenditure.” Overall, TDA argued, the Coalition’s proposed reforms would “address funding inequities in the current system” whilst proving a boon for the nation’s “industries, workforce and productivity”. “It is fundamental that students have the choice of either a university or a TAFE institute in deciding on their careers, and that students be treated equitably when it comes to Commonwealth funding assistance,” TDA wrote.