History proves universities will suffer under Coalition

IF the present polling at the federal level is accurate, for anyone involved in the higher education sector right now it is the calm before the storm. It is only a matter of time before the Coalition returns to government (unless Labor embarks on the greatest comeback in Australian political history) and, when the Coalition does win, funding will be dramatically cut.

If you believe the old adage that history repeats itself, it's worth taking a look at what happened when the federal government changed complexion in 1996.

At that time John Howard didn't signpost funding cuts for universities before the election, but after he won it and the government's books were opened a $8 billion hole was revealed.

That budget black hole, as it came to be known, gave the Coalition the right to slice and dice to get spending under control. Higher education bore the brunt of the squeeze. It was forced to absorb nearly $2b in cuts, 5 per cent of money budgeted for the sector, one-quarter of all cuts made by Peter Costello as treasurer.

Full-fee-paying places for undergraduate study were introduced, staff redundancies were required, HECS payments went up and the salary at which repayments started was reduced to $21,000 a year. Some universities were even forced to close campuses to make their budget numbers add up. The complexion of the sector was irreversibly altered.

A chorus of criticism emanated from the profession.

If the present Liberal opposition is elected at the next election, shadow treasurer Joe Hockey will have to make Tony Abbott's magic pudding economic modelling add up. Personal and company tax cuts, no mining or carbon tax, and generous paid maternity leave point to a budget that can't add up. What does that mean? Cuts not signposted at the election will need to be found after the election.

History will repeat itself: the higher education sector will be burned again.

Liberals have never had an affinity with the sector. They believe campus politics is skewed in favour of left-wing activism. They believe academics sympathise with the Left.

Some even view higher education as a breeding ground for anti-Liberal indoctrination. That was Howard's view and where Abbott is concerned the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

The likes of Abbott see cutting university funding as a victory for the ideological Right over the Left.

It took the best part of the Howard term for higher education funding to return to where it was when the Coalition assumed power.

During that time government spending on higher education as a share of gross domestic product fell compared with all other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development nations. The quality of our universities suffered, our international reputation was held back.

As we move further into the Asian century, Australian universities have a unique opportunity. We are a developed nation in an underdeveloped part of the world. Our region is the population centre of the new world where students are crying out for educational improvements. They will increasingly look to Australia to satisfy educational needs, so long as the sector remains strong.

Shadow higher education spokesman Brett Mason understands this. He is a former university lecturer who has a PhD. If he retains his portfolio in government he will fight hard to prevent cuts to the sector but, sadly, he isn't powerful enough inside the federal Liberal Party to be successful.

Universities need more money, not less: that was the recommendation of the Bradley review. But if Abbott becomes PM the opposite will happen, mark my words.

Peter van Onselen is a Winthrop professor at the University of Western Australia.