Page 1969 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 14 May 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
historic highs in student enrolments. But, interestingly, both UC and ANU suffered a last-minute reduction in overseas students which they attributed to the high Australian dollar. That shows there is some price sensitivity about the popularity of Australian universities.
If Australian universities are forced to raise fees for international students to help meet funding shortfalls, they could suffer an even bigger international student backlash. Both UC and the CIT are very sensitive about the need to expand their student bases and course options. Both those institutions know only too well from recent experience that smaller universities do not survive. That was the clear message delivered by this ACT Labor government and in the review it commissioned from Professor Denise Bradley. Professor Denise Bradley delivered an earlier review into universities elsewhere and her message for Canberra was similar to her earlier report. She said, inter alia, that the size of an institution’s operating budget and its capacity to release funds for development are crucial points of advantage when times are tough. She went on to say that institutions must have sufficient scale to invest in new developments but be agile and swift.
If $2.8 billion is sucked out of the Australian tertiary sector, how can our universities have capacity and capability to develop and invest? Well, simply, they will not. The ANU has estimated it stands to lose $13 million over the next two years because of the federal government’s “robbing Peter to pay Paul” education policy. As Professor Parker described it, it is just bad policy which pitches one side of the education sector against another.
The University of Canberra are facing a $3 million hole because of this. So where and how do they absorb these cuts? In fewer services, possibly cuts to courses, fewer options and amenities for students and possibly reduced staffing. Students will experience it first hand, because they will lose much-needed start-up scholarships. For the Canberra economy, for Canberra shops, this will seriously be felt. It will mean less buying of study materials, less social life, less food buying. The ACT retail sector is already struggling. Once university students also start to spend less, it will put real pressure on many businesses. Not surprisingly, unions also believe their members will feel the cuts through cuts to working conditions, staffing and programs.
So where is the ACT government in all this? Where is the ACT’s Minister for Higher Education? One could be forgiven for asking, “Who’s that?” We heard today that she is actually concerned. But the Chief Minister has been absent. The Chief Minister has been happily selling down the ACT tertiary education sector until this afternoon. It does not seem to have sunk in that, while the ACT government and the ACT Education Union are all gung-ho about wanting to give Gonski a go, they fail to realise that all we are doing is setting up our children for disappointment with a reduced chance of a university education. It is like a parent promising their child that if they work hard and do all their homework and all their chores, they will get a reward. But the reward disappears just as they get to claiming it. So too will it be for our students wanting a tertiary education. A university education will become available only to a privileged few and for Canberra families it will most likely mean their children will have to go interstate.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video