Government shelves uni teaching report

JANE Lomax-Smith got an Australia Day award, but the government has rejected her report into funding of teaching in universities.

JANE Lomax-Smith was honoured with an Australia Day award on Saturday. But the glow had worn off a bit by yesterday when the government comprehensively rejected her year-old report into funding of teaching in universities.

Dr Lomax-Smith's 2011 report confirmed that many disciplines cost more to teach than the revenue they receive from government funding and student fees.

It also said the funding system was based on old political imperatives and ad hoc decisions that rendered it incomprehensible.

Simon Marginson, a professor of higher education at the University of Melbourne, said it was the first systematic look at funding of teaching since the 1980s.

"But the government has gutted the report," he said.

"In higher education, Labor has run out of gas. If the same thing happens to the Gonski review (of school funding), the government will have ducked all the big challenges."

The Lomax-Smith review was commissioned in 2011 to respond to a call for a 10 per cent increase in base funding for teaching. It was contained in the Bradley review of higher education, which has largely driven policy since 2009.

Key items have been expansion of places for undergraduate students and increasing the proportion of disadvantaged students attending university, both of which attracted additional funding streams.

For a year, university administrators have been waiting for the government's long-overdue response to the funding review. Tertiary education minister Chris Evans spent much of 2012 hosing down expectations. But the government's refusal to take on board other recommendations has been met with scorn.

Yesterday universities got what they expected, plus a warning not to become too "complacent" about additional funding they had already received. Senator Evans said universities needed to "constrain costs and look for ways to be more efficient".

Professor Marginson said the government "has inflated the value of its funding, and suppressed from view the hard questions about national investment".

His comments were echoed by Fred Hilmer, vice-chancellor of the University of NSW.

"It's disappointing to have a major funding review and nothing changing as a result," Professor Hilmer said.

"I don't believe the government is presenting a fair picture on funding or on the productivity of our universities."

Belinda Robinson, chief executive of peak group Universities Australia, said funding increases had been countered with significant cuts. These included $1 billion stripped from research programs and cuts of up to $360 million to the equity program and student income support.

Dr Lomax-Smith admitted she was disappointed. She said the review team had developed creative solutions to an incoherent funding system and provided realistic timelines.

"But the government is giving priority to other parts of the system, particularly the uncapping of undergraduate places," Dr Lomax-Smith said. "Additional funding is being directed into that"

Conor King, executive director of Innovative Research Universities, said the case for additional investment remained strong.

He said the Bradley review, which opened the doors to many thousands more students to create a better skilled workforce of the future, was predicated on them receiving a high quality education -- for which additional investment was required.