Earlier this month the Senate rejected the federal government's proposals for reform of higher education funding.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The government has reintroduced an amended version of its Bill and is still hopeful of getting the legislation passed in 2015.
Universities Australia, with the support of Charles Sturt University (CSU), has been pushing for amendments to the legislation so it is fairer for students and protects the interests of regional universities.
There are no clear alternatives to the passage of this legislation, either from the government or from the opposition, so this leaves universities, students, future students and their parents in a state of uncertainty.
What can we expect to see next year and beyond?
The first important point is that the changes in fees would not take place until 2016, and students will still be able to defer their fees through the Higher Education Loans Program (HELP) and pay them back through the tax system.
Under the government's proposals they would not need to make any repayments until their income reaches a little over $50,000, and they would continue to pay back on a sliding scale topping out at a maximum of 8 per cent of pre-tax salary.
The good news is that the government has already compromised its proposal to increase the interest rate on HELP debt which was one of the most worrying aspects.
Until the legislation has passed it is difficult to say what fees CSU would be likely to set.
Universities Australia is pushing for the level of government funding cuts to be reduced.
The government is currently proposing a 20 per cent reduction in funding which means, because the government currently provides more of the money than students do, we would need to lift fees on average by about 30 per cent just to be at break-even.
If the cuts are reduced, the fee rises would be lower.
The changes are likely to increase risk and volatility for universities, so CSU would likely need to increase fees somewhat further than this to protect the quality and breadth of our course offerings. Once we raise fees beyond the straight replacement value, we will be required to put 20 per cent into a scholarship fund so this will require average fees to be lifted a little bit more.
The changes to government funding have different impacts in different disciplines and we will need to do some cross-subsidy so that we do not leave students in some of the high cost disciplines (for example, agriculture) with debts that would be an excessive burden during their careers.
So CSU has quite a complex job to determine the fees we set and, given we need to finalise this by March, this is one of our concerns about the speed of the reform process.
The institutions most likely to raise their fees the highest are the Group of Eight institutions, including the University of Sydney and the University of New South Wales, and these institutions are pushing for fee deregulation hardest because they know they will certainly be much better off with deregulated fees.
While we can't yet set final fees, I think students should be reassured that, particularly at institutions like Charles Sturt University, fees will be set taking into account graduates' ability to pay back the debt and will not be excessive.
Vice-Chancellors have been criticised for supporting the passage of this bill.
We have our differences, but we are all committed to delivering the best quality education to our students and the best research for our communities and the nation.
We have lobbied long and hard for additional funding and, although both sides of politics have done good things, on the core issue of base funding we have been continually disappointed by the actions of governments.
Readers might remember that the previous Labor government had already imposed a 3.25 per cent efficiency dividend which will cost Charles Sturt University about $12million a year, and this was on the back of several reviews which have concluded universities were already underfunded.
Despite being against it in opposition, when elected, the Coalition decided to keep the efficiency dividend.
And despite having proposed it, Labor is now against it.
Fee deregulation will not be a panacea, but it will not be the end of the world either.
Both good and bad things will emerge, but on balance we think it is a reasonable way forward at a time when the federal budget is in distress.
When I was studying civil engineering, my surveying lecturer would regularly introduce theoretical proofs by saying "if I was going there, I wouldn't start from here".
I feel very much the same way about this package of reform. I wish things were otherwise, but if (and only if) we can get further amendments to the Bill it does currently seem the best option we have.
Professor Andrew Vann, Vice-Chancellor, Charles Sturt University