The governments proposed discipline funding rates for teaching are not universally trusted. Mark Warburton proposes a way to work out what they should be

Policy maven Vin Massaro points to less flaws than folly in the figuring the government has used to set the funding rates for courses (CMM July 15).  But as Department of Education, Skills and Employment deputy secretary Rob Heferen told a Senate inquiry (July 28), the information from universities that was used is the best going.

“I don’t think anyone would say it’s perfect information, but rarely do we have the luxury of operating with perfect information. We have to deal with what’s the best available. It’s not as if there’s any other set of data or set of information out there that says, ‘Actually, you shouldn’t use that information, you should use this information, because this information is better.’ In this context, there is no ‘this’, there is just the ‘that’.”

But that that is hardly a way for the feds to fund billions of dollars of university teaching and Mark Warburton (Melbourne Centre for the Study of Higher Education) has an idea.

“Establishing efficient costs should be undertaken with the same sort of rigour, on-going review and consultation with sector experts as is the work undertaken on hospital services by the Independent Hospital Pricing Authority,” he suggests in a new paper.

If any crossbench senator has a list of changes for Minister Tehan’s funding legislation they could add this. If only to cause conniptions among people responsible for the existing “that”.