If overseas students disappeared, the University of Melbourne, like almost every other university around the country, would face massive and unsustainable deficits. All staff not essential to core operations would have to be sacked, me included. Indeed, it is doubtful that the institution could survive at all in its current form, so there would be no point staying anyway.

I agree with Sinclair - the view you have about universities, one that seems shared within the government, is wrong in law and in practice. Universities are independent institutions created by state statute (except the ANU). No government appoints a majority of members of the governing council. Apart from the ANU, the federal government appoints no members. It is merely the largest client, and has abused the power that position has given them (assisted by incompetent political strategies adopted by universities).

unless the removal of fee-paying students would abolish your job

I think I understand the argument, but it’s still not clear how this differs from other jobs in other industries. Up until I took on an Admin role last year (ending in June this year) I taught fee-paying students only (who tended to be foreign). Last year I taught some honours students (two of whom had HECS places). If the OS market had collapsed (to zero, say) 99 percent of my students would be gone. My employer would have to lay off staff. How they choose to do so would have an impact of whether my job per se was abolished. (Personally, I suspect some sort of last-in-first-out, or no-PhD, or no publications rule would be applied). The point here is that revenue is fungible within the organisation. (So while I may be employed to earn the marginal dollar, I might not be the marginal employee - and I’m sticking to that story )

But consider the general point. The federal government is a large consumer/financier of education services. It contributes between 30 - 40 percent of my employers Income Statement (from memory). If any organisation lost its single largest customer jobs would be lost. Ultimately, in most organisation employees are paid for by the consumer.

Sinc, you’re quite right that my own position is 100% taxpayer funded.

I’ve noted myself that the 7:30 report isn’t what it used to be - they are still finding their feet after the witch hunt last year about “fair and balanced” reporting. What I want to see is a return to critical stories of government (*any* government) that have been purged in the tentative approaches now adopted by an organisation cowed by baseless criticism.

The Burke and Grill story is an interesting one - there’s basically little evidence of anything other than normal government at work (which is objectionable when you find out about it, but hardly novel, new or even exciting). There is no evidence of actual corruption in their post-criminal careers. Keating was no fan of the ABC when it was chasing his government, I get the impression that the current lot are rather thin skinned or have something to hide (or worse, are too stupid to have anything to hide i.e. AWB, children overboard). The whole “ABC bias” is a weird sideshow with no winners.