The education minister, Simon Birmingham, has defended the government’s package of university cuts, arguing that vice-chancellors would manage to find savings and noting that they also supported fee increases until recently.
In a speech to the Australian Financial Review’s higher education conference to be delivered on Wednesday, Birmingham says the government’s “credible plan back to surplus ... requires higher education to make a contribution”.
Before the May budget the Turnbull government revealed its plan to cut the university sector by $2.8bn through a two-year efficiency dividend and a 7.5% cumulative fee increase by 2021.
The package, which includes lowering the Help debt repayment threshold to $42,000, does not yet have sufficient Senate crossbench support to pass.
In the speech, seen by Guardian Australia, Birmingham accuses Bill Shorten of “political opportunism” for opposing university cuts when the Gillard government proposed $6bn in savings from the sector in the 2013 budget.
“I’m confident that university leaders, including many intelligent people in this room, can manage the proposed 2.5% efficiency dividend on [commonwealth grants] funding to be levied in 2018 and 2019,” he says.
Birmingham suggests universities consider economies of scale, efficiencies from new technology and modernising work and teaching practices, accusing “some in the sector” of behaving as if “the basic laws of business and economics” don’t apply to universities.
Despite the cut, funding of universities from all government sources is set to increase by 23% from 2017 to 2021, he says.
Birmingham will say the proposed fee increase is the first in a decade.
“I note that some vice-chancellors have expressed concern at these modest fee increases, yet all but one VC supported full fee-deregulation as part of the previous package.”
Birmingham says that if the government funded the university sector at the rates it did in 1989, with no Help loans to students, they would receive $4,300 less than they currently do per student place.
“So, my challenge to those prophets of doom is to answer this question … What world would you prefer?”
On Tuesday the Universities Australia chair, Margaret Gardner, queried why the government did not start the reform discussion by asking “what is necessary for the continuation or acceleration” of Australian universities’ success.
She said higher education had made a “nation-building contribution” to Australia, citing the fact international education is the nation’s third-largest export.
“I see little understanding of where, in universities, the efficiencies have been made, the innovations seeded and implanted, the risks taken and those risks that still need to be taken.”
Gardner said that while innovations created by universities were lauded the “real test of government policy intention can be seen in its legislation”, citing cuts including that “funding per student will be cut and students asked to pay more for a less well-resourced education”.
She warned that cuts would leave “a number of institutions in higher and vocational education ... at greater risk, creating uncertainty for their staff and students, the communities they serve and the markets in which they operate”.
On Monday the Australian Financial Review reported that Birmingham was considering an alternative package of cuts if the Senate attempted to block the government’s plan.
Denying the substance of the story, Birmingham said he was “focused on legislating what was announced in the budget, which is the best way of achieving sustainability in higher education”.
Senator Nick Xenophon reportedly said that, while he and his colleagues had not made a final decision, they had “serious concerns” with the package.
