Message from the Vice Chancellor

The powers of politics, the sophistication of the Senate

By Vice-Chancellor Professor Roger Dean

Roger Dean: The most crucial, yet unresolved, issue for higher education is indexation.

November 9, 2004: In a rare circumstance, our newly elected Liberal Government will from July 2005 have control over the Senate as well as the Lower House. What can it do with this? More importantly, what will it do?

The most crucial, yet unresolved, issue for higher education is indexation. The modest "operating grant" from the Federal Government (roughly 30 per cent of the income of the University of Canberra, for example) is what largely underpins our efforts in teaching and learning.

It is complemented by the student contributions, received in the first instance from Government as the Student Contribution Amount. After many years' delay, this is recouped by Government from those students who become financially successful, through their taxes (and dependent on the level of their income).

This "operating grant" has been eroded drastically since 1997, when the HECS scheme really began to bite in our higher education system; roughly a 25 per cent reduction in resource per full-time undergraduate domestic student has ensued.

State schools have their "operating grants" indexed by a factor which approximates real cost changes in their expenditure on teaching and learning; universities' indexation has been roughly half that rate. A drastic loss.

Labor campaigned on the basis, among many others, of a commitment to index our operating grants on a similar basis to schools. The Liberals expressed sympathy to our plight, but the promised review into indexation arrangements - a condition of the legislation passing through the Senate - has failed to eventuate more than 11 months later despite a commitment it would be completed by February 2005.

What did we hear on this from Education Minister Dr Brendan Nelson in his key speech and interviews after the re-election of the Liberal Government? Just about nothing.

We need to ensure that this review is completed, and is a review with substance. If so, the outcome could only be enhanced indexation rates.

The Minister seemed more concerned about whether universities might be moved from state to federal legislation. Note that the states provide less than 1 per cent of the budgets of universities around the nation. Thus this issue of legislative foundation has very limited bearing on viability, success, and the social and economic contribution of Universities.

Removing one layer of government from our chains could help us to avoid the presently duplicated bureaucratic reporting to which we have to respond in order to attract the diminishing value of the Commonwealth operating grant. UC should always be committed to the ACT and the surrounding region. But how or whether this is embodied in legislation is quite secondary.

Dr Nelson was also concerned about individual staff agreements, which we already have in sufficient profusion. And about removing compulsory student contributions to their support facilities: these facilities are essential, even if the means by which the funds to support them could reasonably be varied. A Government that committed to provide these funds, regardless of the means, would be perfectly acceptable. We have seen no sign of this yet from our re-confirmed Minister.

If the Senate is to be controlled by the Government, it needs the sophistication and commitment of both government and opposition politics rolled into one voice. Dr Nelson, has this capacity; let us hope he fulfils it.

Previous columns

SCA student fees revisited

About our Vice-Chancellor: The Academic and the Man

For further information about Monitor Online, contact the editor: monitor@canberra.edu.au

Copyright © 2005 University of Canberra

Last Updated on August 1, 2005