Advertisement

University of Canberra the rich kid on the block?

By 19 July 2014 23

Is it just me or do others get the impression UC is the rich kid on the block?

For example this week was one of the few weeks they didn’t buy a Canberra sporting team but instead they opened a $16 million sports field. I’m sure next week we will read about their new UC Canberra Hospital.

Why how do they have so much money, especially when their competitors ANU and CIT are telling the world how poor they are?

Please login to post your comments
23 Responses to University of Canberra the rich kid on the block?
#1
bd842:45 pm, 19 Jul 14

It’s an illusion. Funded by one off grants and very large amount of loan debt. I don’t think the hospital will be owned by them.

#2
alum26003:07 pm, 19 Jul 14

I reckon UC would say they’re in pretty good financial shape, but the Brumbies and ACT government paid for most of the sports building and the ACT will pay for all of the hospital.

ANU gets a millions of dollars from the taxpayer that no other uni gets just for being the ANU and will probably cash in by doubling their fees, so I wouldn’t feel too sorry for them.

#3
dungfungus4:31 pm, 19 Jul 14

Would I be wrong if I said UC are the first tertiary institution in Australia to sponsor a professional football team?
Funny how they can find the money for professional footballers (just like they do in the USA) yet they whinge about the coalition’s plan to derugulate Australian tertiary insitutions (just as they do in the USA).
Seems to me to be just a hint of hypocrisy here.
Also, when you look at the list of former ACT Labor/Green MLAs and their mates that have positions at CU one can understand why they get so much funding. It’s a bit like that evergreen maxim “the ALP is the political arm of the trade union movement”.

#4
JimCharles8:57 am, 20 Jul 14

Where UC do seem to be doing well is in partnership building and promotions…the links with sporting teams is ambitious and raises the profile of Canberra.
As alum2600 says, the medical facility will be an ACT building and teaching facility (and their literature is careful not to describe the function as a full “hospital” along the lines of Calvary or Canberra), but UC can call it what they like because there are advertising and profile-raising benefits from the name used…..a good thing to include in your prospectus that you have a hospital on campus.

#5
Antagonist10:55 am, 20 Jul 14

Yes, it is just you.

Australian Centre on China in the World – current project.
New ANU Chemical Sciences Building – current project.
Restoration of the Buggy Shed at Constable’s Cottage – believed completed.
A 3300 square metre extension to the Crawford School – completed 10/2012.
Jaeger 8 building for the Research School of Earth Sciences – completed 12/2011.
Lena Karmel Lodge (the massive $350m+ accommodation complex for 550+ students on Barry Dr) – completed 2012.

Looks to me like ANU has the money. Lots of it.

#6
dungfungus12:02 pm, 20 Jul 14

JimCharles said :

Where UC do seem to be doing well is in partnership building and promotions…the links with sporting teams is ambitious and raises the profile of Canberra.
As alum2600 says, the medical facility will be an ACT building and teaching facility (and their literature is careful not to describe the function as a full “hospital” along the lines of Calvary or Canberra), but UC can call it what they like because there are advertising and profile-raising benefits from the name used…..a good thing to include in your prospectus that you have a hospital on campus.

The term “profile-raising” is something that would not be out of place with “visionary” and the other buzz words that our Labor minority government use.
Whom are the target group that will respond to “profile-raising” and what benefits will flow from it?.

#7
dungfungus1:35 pm, 20 Jul 14

Antagonist said :

Yes, it is just you.

Australian Centre on China in the World – current project.
New ANU Chemical Sciences Building – current project.
Restoration of the Buggy Shed at Constable’s Cottage – believed completed.
A 3300 square metre extension to the Crawford School – completed 10/2012.
Jaeger 8 building for the Research School of Earth Sciences – completed 12/2011.
Lena Karmel Lodge (the massive $350m+ accommodation complex for 550+ students on Barry Dr) – completed 2012.

Looks to me like ANU has the money. Lots of it.

I heard somewhere that the ANU is the biggest residential property owner (after Directorate of Housing) in Canberra.
Do they pay rates on all this real estate? I doubt it.

#8
Antagonist5:37 pm, 20 Jul 14

dungfungus said :

I heard somewhere that the ANU is the biggest residential property owner (after Directorate of Housing) in Canberra.
Do they pay rates on all this real estate? I doubt it.

Not sure about their rates, but I am pretty sure the accommodation in Lena Karmel House is subsidised by the commonwealth government so that the cost to students is 20% below market rental value. That is quite a subsidy when you are talking about 550 students. And probably more money than ANU would pay in rates for that particular site.

#9
chewy1410:11 am, 21 Jul 14

dungfungus said :

Would I be wrong if I said UC are the first tertiary institution in Australia to sponsor a professional football team?
Funny how they can find the money for professional footballers (just like they do in the USA) yet they whinge about the coalition’s plan to derugulate Australian tertiary insitutions (just as they do in the USA).
Seems to me to be just a hint of hypocrisy here.
Also, when you look at the list of former ACT Labor/Green MLAs and their mates that have positions at CU one can understand why they get so much funding. It’s a bit like that evergreen maxim “the ALP is the political arm of the trade union movement”.

I don’t think UC actually have given the Brumbies much cash, I think their sponsorship is more “in kind” providing them with a base of operations after the move from Griffith.

#10
dungfungus11:04 am, 21 Jul 14

chewy14 said :

dungfungus said :

Would I be wrong if I said UC are the first tertiary institution in Australia to sponsor a professional football team?
Funny how they can find the money for professional footballers (just like they do in the USA) yet they whinge about the coalition’s plan to derugulate Australian tertiary insitutions (just as they do in the USA).
Seems to me to be just a hint of hypocrisy here.
Also, when you look at the list of former ACT Labor/Green MLAs and their mates that have positions at CU one can understand why they get so much funding. It’s a bit like that evergreen maxim “the ALP is the political arm of the trade union movement”.

I don’t think UC actually have given the Brumbies much cash, I think their sponsorship is more “in kind” providing them with a base of operations after the move from Griffith.

From the media release in 2012 when the sponsorship was announced:
“Neither the Brumbies nor the university would disclose the sponsorship value, but it is believed to be similar to the $1 million a season Chinese technology company Huawei had pledged last year”.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/union-news/university-of-canberra-joins-forces-with-brumbies-20120131-1qqig.html#ixzz383nOFySd
Since then, some courses were going to be dropped to allow the sponsorship to be continued as a result of the previous federal governmnet cutting funding to universities. I don’t know where this ended up.
Also, the mysterious CBR has become a sponsor. This could be an indirect source of funding from the ACT Government.
In kind indeed!

#11
chewy142:07 pm, 21 Jul 14

dungfungus said :

chewy14 said :

dungfungus said :

Would I be wrong if I said UC are the first tertiary institution in Australia to sponsor a professional football team?
Funny how they can find the money for professional footballers (just like they do in the USA) yet they whinge about the coalition’s plan to derugulate Australian tertiary insitutions (just as they do in the USA).
Seems to me to be just a hint of hypocrisy here.
Also, when you look at the list of former ACT Labor/Green MLAs and their mates that have positions at CU one can understand why they get so much funding. It’s a bit like that evergreen maxim “the ALP is the political arm of the trade union movement”.

I don’t think UC actually have given the Brumbies much cash, I think their sponsorship is more “in kind” providing them with a base of operations after the move from Griffith.

From the media release in 2012 when the sponsorship was announced:
“Neither the Brumbies nor the university would disclose the sponsorship value, but it is believed to be similar to the $1 million a season Chinese technology company Huawei had pledged last year”.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/union-news/university-of-canberra-joins-forces-with-brumbies-20120131-1qqig.html#ixzz383nOFySd
Since then, some courses were going to be dropped to allow the sponsorship to be continued as a result of the previous federal governmnet cutting funding to universities. I don’t know where this ended up.
Also, the mysterious CBR has become a sponsor. This could be an indirect source of funding from the ACT Government.
In kind indeed!

Key word in that statement being “value”, not cash. Have you got anything better?

Since then they’ve also done the deal for the construction of the high performance sports hub at UC which each party paid $5 mill towards (i think).

Have you got any proof that the sponsorship has affected the courses offered or standards? Seems like you’re just engaging in idle speculation because you don’t like the deal (which you don’t actually know the details of).

#12
dungfungus3:03 pm, 21 Jul 14

chewy14 said :

dungfungus said :

chewy14 said :

dungfungus said :

Would I be wrong if I said UC are the first tertiary institution in Australia to sponsor a professional football team?
Funny how they can find the money for professional footballers (just like they do in the USA) yet they whinge about the coalition’s plan to derugulate Australian tertiary insitutions (just as they do in the USA).
Seems to me to be just a hint of hypocrisy here.
Also, when you look at the list of former ACT Labor/Green MLAs and their mates that have positions at CU one can understand why they get so much funding. It’s a bit like that evergreen maxim “the ALP is the political arm of the trade union movement”.

I don’t think UC actually have given the Brumbies much cash, I think their sponsorship is more “in kind” providing them with a base of operations after the move from Griffith.

From the media release in 2012 when the sponsorship was announced:
“Neither the Brumbies nor the university would disclose the sponsorship value, but it is believed to be similar to the $1 million a season Chinese technology company Huawei had pledged last year”.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/union-news/university-of-canberra-joins-forces-with-brumbies-20120131-1qqig.html#ixzz383nOFySd
Since then, some courses were going to be dropped to allow the sponsorship to be continued as a result of the previous federal governmnet cutting funding to universities. I don’t know where this ended up.
Also, the mysterious CBR has become a sponsor. This could be an indirect source of funding from the ACT Government.
In kind indeed!

Key word in that statement being “value”, not cash. Have you got anything better?

Since then they’ve also done the deal for the construction of the high performance sports hub at UC which each party paid $5 mill towards (i think).

Have you got any proof that the sponsorship has affected the courses offered or standards? Seems like you’re just engaging in idle speculation because you don’t like the deal (which you don’t actually know the details of).

It would appear that you are unsure of the details as well. In fact, the actual cash amount has not been revealed.
I also said I was unsure how the language courses that were threatened ended up.
I suggest you read the following:
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/national/tertiary-education/uni-of-canberra-urged-to-drop-brumbies-20130716-2q1m5.html
While your at it, do you want to deny that CBR Canberra (owned 100% by the ACT Government) doesn’t fund the Brumbies?
You’re right about one thing though and this is “no, I don’t like the deal”.

#13
chewy143:36 pm, 21 Jul 14

dungfungus said :

chewy14 said :

dungfungus said :

chewy14 said :

dungfungus said :

Would I be wrong if I said UC are the first tertiary institution in Australia to sponsor a professional football team?
Funny how they can find the money for professional footballers (just like they do in the USA) yet they whinge about the coalition’s plan to derugulate Australian tertiary insitutions (just as they do in the USA).
Seems to me to be just a hint of hypocrisy here.
Also, when you look at the list of former ACT Labor/Green MLAs and their mates that have positions at CU one can understand why they get so much funding. It’s a bit like that evergreen maxim “the ALP is the political arm of the trade union movement”.

I don’t think UC actually have given the Brumbies much cash, I think their sponsorship is more “in kind” providing them with a base of operations after the move from Griffith.

From the media release in 2012 when the sponsorship was announced:
“Neither the Brumbies nor the university would disclose the sponsorship value, but it is believed to be similar to the $1 million a season Chinese technology company Huawei had pledged last year”.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/union-news/university-of-canberra-joins-forces-with-brumbies-20120131-1qqig.html#ixzz383nOFySd
Since then, some courses were going to be dropped to allow the sponsorship to be continued as a result of the previous federal governmnet cutting funding to universities. I don’t know where this ended up.
Also, the mysterious CBR has become a sponsor. This could be an indirect source of funding from the ACT Government.
In kind indeed!

Key word in that statement being “value”, not cash. Have you got anything better?

Since then they’ve also done the deal for the construction of the high performance sports hub at UC which each party paid $5 mill towards (i think).

Have you got any proof that the sponsorship has affected the courses offered or standards? Seems like you’re just engaging in idle speculation because you don’t like the deal (which you don’t actually know the details of).

It would appear that you are unsure of the details as well. In fact, the actual cash amount has not been revealed.
I also said I was unsure how the language courses that were threatened ended up.
I suggest you read the following:
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/national/tertiary-education/uni-of-canberra-urged-to-drop-brumbies-20130716-2q1m5.html
While your at it, do you want to deny that CBR Canberra (owned 100% by the ACT Government) doesn’t fund the Brumbies?
You’re right about one thing though and this is “no, I don’t like the deal”.

Dungfungus using a claim from a union in support of his argument. Well I never.

No, I don’t know the dollar amounts which is why I’m not claiming that I know UC’s position or any detrimental effect of their sponsorship. And neither do you.

As for CBR, do you really find it surprising that the Canberra brand would utilise a major sporting team to push themselves? Note I’m not saying that CBR is a good use of government money in the first place, but this makes perfect sense from a branding perspective.

#14
watto234:03 pm, 21 Jul 14

dungfungus said :

JimCharles said :

Where UC do seem to be doing well is in partnership building and promotions…the links with sporting teams is ambitious and raises the profile of Canberra.
As alum2600 says, the medical facility will be an ACT building and teaching facility (and their literature is careful not to describe the function as a full “hospital” along the lines of Calvary or Canberra), but UC can call it what they like because there are advertising and profile-raising benefits from the name used…..a good thing to include in your prospectus that you have a hospital on campus.

The term “profile-raising” is something that would not be out of place with “visionary” and the other buzz words that our Labor minority government use.
Whom are the target group that will respond to “profile-raising” and what benefits will flow from it?.

Easy, full fee paying international students. Its a big industry in Australia and helps pay for the education of Australians.

#15
dungfungus4:49 pm, 21 Jul 14

watto23 said :

dungfungus said :

JimCharles said :

Where UC do seem to be doing well is in partnership building and promotions…the links with sporting teams is ambitious and raises the profile of Canberra.
As alum2600 says, the medical facility will be an ACT building and teaching facility (and their literature is careful not to describe the function as a full “hospital” along the lines of Calvary or Canberra), but UC can call it what they like because there are advertising and profile-raising benefits from the name used…..a good thing to include in your prospectus that you have a hospital on campus.

The term “profile-raising” is something that would not be out of place with “visionary” and the other buzz words that our Labor minority government use.
Whom are the target group that will respond to “profile-raising” and what benefits will flow from it?.

Easy, full fee paying international students. Its a big industry in Australia and helps pay for the education of Australians.

But everyone is saying now that our universities will be globally uncompetitive because of the coalition’s plan to derugulate tertiary education fees so your spin is academic because there won’t be any more full fee paying international students coming to Canberra to bask in the University of Canberra’s profile-raising.

#16
dungfungus5:37 pm, 21 Jul 14

chewy14 said :

dungfungus said :

chewy14 said :

dungfungus said :

chewy14 said :

dungfungus said :

Would I be wrong if I said UC are the first tertiary institution in Australia to sponsor a professional football team?
Funny how they can find the money for professional footballers (just like they do in the USA) yet they whinge about the coalition’s plan to derugulate Australian tertiary insitutions (just as they do in the USA).
Seems to me to be just a hint of hypocrisy here.
Also, when you look at the list of former ACT Labor/Green MLAs and their mates that have positions at CU one can understand why they get so much funding. It’s a bit like that evergreen maxim “the ALP is the political arm of the trade union movement”.

I don’t think UC actually have given the Brumbies much cash, I think their sponsorship is more “in kind” providing them with a base of operations after the move from Griffith.

From the media release in 2012 when the sponsorship was announced:
“Neither the Brumbies nor the university would disclose the sponsorship value, but it is believed to be similar to the $1 million a season Chinese technology company Huawei had pledged last year”.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/union-news/university-of-canberra-joins-forces-with-brumbies-20120131-1qqig.html#ixzz383nOFySd
Since then, some courses were going to be dropped to allow the sponsorship to be continued as a result of the previous federal governmnet cutting funding to universities. I don’t know where this ended up.
Also, the mysterious CBR has become a sponsor. This could be an indirect source of funding from the ACT Government.
In kind indeed!

Key word in that statement being “value”, not cash. Have you got anything better?

Since then they’ve also done the deal for the construction of the high performance sports hub at UC which each party paid $5 mill towards (i think).

Have you got any proof that the sponsorship has affected the courses offered or standards? Seems like you’re just engaging in idle speculation because you don’t like the deal (which you don’t actually know the details of).

It would appear that you are unsure of the details as well. In fact, the actual cash amount has not been revealed.
I also said I was unsure how the language courses that were threatened ended up.
I suggest you read the following:
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/national/tertiary-education/uni-of-canberra-urged-to-drop-brumbies-20130716-2q1m5.html
While your at it, do you want to deny that CBR Canberra (owned 100% by the ACT Government) doesn’t fund the Brumbies?
You’re right about one thing though and this is “no, I don’t like the deal”.

Dungfungus using a claim from a union in support of his argument. Well I never.

No, I don’t know the dollar amounts which is why I’m not claiming that I know UC’s position or any detrimental effect of their sponsorship. And neither do you.

As for CBR, do you really find it surprising that the Canberra brand would utilise a major sporting team to push themselves? Note I’m not saying that CBR is a good use of government money in the first place, but this makes perfect sense from a branding perspective.

Once again you are verballing me. I never said I was supporting any arguments and in fact, for the second time, I said the outcome of that issue was not clear.

#17
milkman7:35 pm, 21 Jul 14

watto23 said :

Easy, full fee paying international students. Its a big industry in Australia and helps pay for the education of Australians.

Makes a lot of sense I reckon. Charge the international students more and use it to subsidise the locals.

#18
dungfungus8:08 am, 22 Jul 14

milkman said :

watto23 said :

Easy, full fee paying international students. Its a big industry in Australia and helps pay for the education of Australians.

Makes a lot of sense I reckon. Charge the international students more and use it to subsidise the locals.

Although education is Canberra’s biggest industry, it is GST exempt.
If the coming review on GST removes all current GST exemptions, that means resident Australian students will pay GST on top of their fees but foreign students will still be exempt because the product/service is an export.

#19
urchin11:51 am, 22 Jul 14

dungfungus said :

watto23 said :

dungfungus said :

JimCharles said :

Where UC do seem to be doing well is in partnership building and promotions…the links with sporting teams is ambitious and raises the profile of Canberra.
As alum2600 says, the medical facility will be an ACT building and teaching facility (and their literature is careful not to describe the function as a full “hospital” along the lines of Calvary or Canberra), but UC can call it what they like because there are advertising and profile-raising benefits from the name used…..a good thing to include in your prospectus that you have a hospital on campus.

The term “profile-raising” is something that would not be out of place with “visionary” and the other buzz words that our Labor minority government use.
Whom are the target group that will respond to “profile-raising” and what benefits will flow from it?.

Easy, full fee paying international students. Its a big industry in Australia and helps pay for the education of Australians.

But everyone is saying now that our universities will be globally uncompetitive because of the coalition’s plan to derugulate tertiary education fees so your spin is academic because there won’t be any more full fee paying international students coming to Canberra to bask in the University of Canberra’s profile-raising.

I don’t know who is saying that… deregulating fees will impact domestic students, not international students (they already pay a lot). Deregulating means that universities can charge as much as they like up to the amount that they charge international students.

If anything, it is good for international students as they will likely end up paying the same amount for a system that has more money poured into it thanks to domestic students.

it doesn’t change the fact that it is a terrible idea and will result in greater stratification of society, but it will not do anything to reduce the appeal for international students, though it might reduce the universities’ reliance upon them.

#20
watto2311:53 am, 22 Jul 14

dungfungus said :

milkman said :

watto23 said :

Easy, full fee paying international students. Its a big industry in Australia and helps pay for the education of Australians.

Makes a lot of sense I reckon. Charge the international students more and use it to subsidise the locals.

Although education is Canberra’s biggest industry, it is GST exempt.
If the coming review on GST removes all current GST exemptions, that means resident Australian students will pay GST on top of their fees but foreign students will still be exempt because the product/service is an export.

Not necessarily. Its a what if scenario and nothing has changed right now.
Also Australia has to compete to get these students here, and its a heaps cheaper place to study than huge debt in say the USA.

#21
dungfungus12:44 pm, 22 Jul 14

watto23 said :

dungfungus said :

milkman said :

watto23 said :

Easy, full fee paying international students. Its a big industry in Australia and helps pay for the education of Australians.

Makes a lot of sense I reckon. Charge the international students more and use it to subsidise the locals.

Although education is Canberra’s biggest industry, it is GST exempt.
If the coming review on GST removes all current GST exemptions, that means resident Australian students will pay GST on top of their fees but foreign students will still be exempt because the product/service is an export.

Not necessarily. Its a what if scenario and nothing has changed right now.
Also Australia has to compete to get these students here, and its a heaps cheaper place to study than huge debt in say the USA.

I was referring to the GST. It’s not a “what if” either. Exports are GST free.
If, under deregulation, student fees for all students (resident and foreign) are the same price then under existing rules, the foreigners will be at an advantage.
I think we all agreed on a previous thread that Australia was definitely the cheapest place to study. I don’t think foreign students in the USA would qualify for student loans either. They certainly aren’t allowed to get HELP funding in Australia.

#22
chewy144:00 pm, 22 Jul 14

dungfungus said :

watto23 said :

dungfungus said :

milkman said :

watto23 said :

Easy, full fee paying international students. Its a big industry in Australia and helps pay for the education of Australians.

Makes a lot of sense I reckon. Charge the international students more and use it to subsidise the locals.

Although education is Canberra’s biggest industry, it is GST exempt.
If the coming review on GST removes all current GST exemptions, that means resident Australian students will pay GST on top of their fees but foreign students will still be exempt because the product/service is an export.

Not necessarily. Its a what if scenario and nothing has changed right now.
Also Australia has to compete to get these students here, and its a heaps cheaper place to study than huge debt in say the USA.

I was referring to the GST. It’s not a “what if” either. Exports are GST free.
If, under deregulation, student fees for all students (resident and foreign) are the same price then under existing rules, the foreigners will be at an advantage.
I think we all agreed on a previous thread that Australia was definitely the cheapest place to study. I don’t think foreign students in the USA would qualify for student loans either. They certainly aren’t allowed to get HELP funding in Australia.

I don’t think you are correct. The service is provided in Australia and would be subject to GST regardless of the fact that the students are from overseas.

https://www.ato.gov.au/Business/GST/When-to-charge-GST-(and-when-not-to)/GST-free-sales/Exports/

#23
dungfungus6:14 pm, 23 Jul 14

chewy14 said :

dungfungus said :

watto23 said :

dungfungus said :

milkman said :

watto23 said :

Easy, full fee paying international students. Its a big industry in Australia and helps pay for the education of Australians.

Makes a lot of sense I reckon. Charge the international students more and use it to subsidise the locals.

Although education is Canberra’s biggest industry, it is GST exempt.
If the coming review on GST removes all current GST exemptions, that means resident Australian students will pay GST on top of their fees but foreign students will still be exempt because the product/service is an export.

Not necessarily. Its a what if scenario and nothing has changed right now.
Also Australia has to compete to get these students here, and its a heaps cheaper place to study than huge debt in say the USA.

I was referring to the GST. It’s not a “what if” either. Exports are GST free.
If, under deregulation, student fees for all students (resident and foreign) are the same price then under existing rules, the foreigners will be at an advantage.
I think we all agreed on a previous thread that Australia was definitely the cheapest place to study. I don’t think foreign students in the USA would qualify for student loans either. They certainly aren’t allowed to get HELP funding in Australia.

I don’t think you are correct. The service is provided in Australia and would be subject to GST regardless of the fact that the students are from overseas.

https://www.ato.gov.au/Business/GST/When-to-charge-GST-(and-when-not-to)/GST-free-sales/Exports/

You have a good point and that link to the ATO says among other things:
“A school in Australia provides tuition to overseas students in Australia. However, it bills the overseas parents of the students directly. As the supply is being made to students in Australia the supply is not GST-free.”
I checked the GST policy of several Australia tertiary institutions and they have applied to the ATO and obtained exemption for the payment of GST subject to very strict conditions.
I think a complete review of the GST is required. There should be no exemptions on anything full stop.
GST exemptions for foreign students

Sponsors
RiotACT Proudly Supports
Advertisement
Copyright © 2014 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.