Australia¡¯s universities are right to call for ¡°greater financial certainty and clarity¡± from the country¡¯s government, according to experts, as speculation grows that higher education could face cuts to public funding.

Barney Glover, the chair of Universities Australia, attacked the government¡¯s policy approach in a speech on 9 March ahead of the organisation¡¯s conference.

His comments follow the government¡¯s decision to shelve a plan to deregulate fees after it ran into opposition in the Senate ¨C although the Liberal Party that leads the government may return to the plan in its manifesto for the country¡¯s general election, which could be held as early as July.

Professor Glover, vice-chancellor of?Western Sydney University, said in his speech: ¡°Almost two years of policy insecurity and uncertainty is taking its toll on the ability of universities to plan and allocate resources in their students¡¯ best interests. It is difficult to imagine any other industry tolerating such policy instability.¡±

É«ºÐÖ±²¥

Hamish Coates, professor of higher education at the University of Melbourne, told Times Higher Education that the sector was in ¡°a really uncertain, limbo phase¡±.

He said: ¡°It¡¯s almost certainly the case that the free market won¡¯t work in higher education. But it¡¯s almost certainly the case at the other end that a tightly regulated supply doesn¡¯t work either ¨C it¡¯s just too hard to predict workforce needs¡­it¡¯s not transparent and it¡¯s not the most efficient way of going about things.¡±

É«ºÐÖ±²¥

Professor Coates noted that in terms of overseas competition, Australia is ¡°in an enormously dynamic region in which private [funded] higher education has been the modus operandi for all the governments¡­China, Malaysia, Singapore, Japan, Korea¡±.

He warned that in terms of funding, the ¡°sector needs greater financial certainty and clarity so it can plan how to go about generating new forms [of delivery and qualifications]¡±.

At the UA conference, education minister Simon Birmingham made a speech pledging to ensure that ¡°the next time we seek support of the Senate for reforms, they are not only generally supported amongst UA or vice-chancellors, but that the reasons for reform are more broadly well appreciated, the vision well enunciated and the implications well understood¡±.

He also said in relation to funding: ¡°We need to reconsider the balance between public and private contributions versus public and private benefits.¡±

É«ºÐÖ±²¥

Andrew Norton, higher education programme manager at the Grattan Institute thinktank, said he thought that Mr Birmingham¡¯s comments ¡°confirmed that the May Budget will include another attempt to reduce [the government¡¯s] per student¡­contributions¡±.

Although Mr Norton said that the measure was ¡°unlikely to pass the current Senate¡±, he highlighted the government¡¯s plans to change the Senate voting system.

¡°If the government wins the election it is possible, although not likely, that they will have a Senate that might pass cuts,¡± he said.

¡°Universities would be compensated for any lost revenue by increases in student contributions,¡± he added, either via fee deregulation or fee increases within regulated caps.

É«ºÐÖ±²¥

But Mr Norton continued: ¡°While I understand UA¡¯s problems with the higher education reform process, the most likely outcome on per student funding rates is the status quo, or some minor variation on the status quo.

¡°That is Labor¡¯s policy, and if the Liberals cannot get reforms through the Senate it is by default their policy too. Australian universities know how to deal with the status quo.¡±?

É«ºÐÖ±²¥

john.morgan@tesglobal.com