Ever tried to grow an orchid? You spend a long time working to create something beautiful, but if you are careless and leave the greenhouse door open for even a moment, the orchid quickly shrivels and dies.

As a Dean of Business, I rarely compare gardening to universities but the analogy currently seems particularly apt.

Our tertiary education sector has deep roots that may look secure; some would even have you believe that the sector is awash with taxpayer money. In reality our universities, which are facing major disruption from the proposed federal reforms, are part of a fragile, global ecosystem.

One can only hope the senate committee currently considering these reforms take into account the delicate nature of this situation as public hearings continue ahead of their August 9 report.

Australia has the third-highest number of international students in the world. They underpin one of our most successful growth industries – international education. However, this vital and significant source of university income could evaporate in an instant if negative economic or political winds blow.

Australian universities are now only just able to compete with the costs of studying in the USA. Issues such as a change in our relationship with China, global turmoil or significant currency fluctuations could hit Australia hard.

So, with many variables beyond our control already, why would we want to upset the delicate balance ourselves?

The government is currently trying to secure support for the Birmingham Higher Education Package - a proposal designed to provide budget relief, but which could prune so severely that it kills parts of the very sector it professes to nurture.

Under the new measures, students will meet half the proposed 10 per cent savings from the Commonwealth Grant Scheme with universities making cuts to fund the rest. The proposed 2.5 per cent 'efficiency dividend' will come with a 7.5 per cent Commonwealth Grant reduction based on broad, performance-related targets that will be measured in ways still to be announced. Universities unable to secure the performance-related funds will be forced to make even more cuts to their core business.

And that's not all: funding of post-graduate, Commonwealth-supported places will go along with some support for New Zealand citizens and permanent Australian residents – moves likely to impact university revenue streams in varying, but significant, ways.

Of course, universities should be held accountable for their performance and the funds that they receive, but it's hard to see how this particular set of proposals will improve the quality of learning experiences and student outcomes, which are major attractions for students here and overseas.

Australia's universities have worked hard to get where they are today. They have continued to improve educational standards while heeding calls to broaden the appeal of their projects, go for demand-driven funding, and encourage a more diverse, representative and larger cohort of domestic students.

At the same time, they've also marketed and recruited very effectively on the highly competitive international stage. Business schools like Griffith, which have been at the forefront of this, now account for more than half of the international university graduates in Australia. In the 2016 International Student Survey, 89 per cent of all international students indicated they were satisfied or very satisfied with their overall experience here.

Cutting funding because universities are doing well seems counter-intuitive as the cuts may hurt the very elements that have created the success. They could also create a vicious cycle, but not the same vicious cycle for all.

Leading capital city universities will be able to weather the storm better than their regional counterparts, which contribute so much to our regions and industries of the future like agribusiness. The cuts are also likely to more adversely impact second or third players in metropolitan areas, which often provide higher education access to many students from more marginalised and disadvantaged groups.

Do we want a two-tier system of leading universities with a large number of full fee-paying students at one end of the spectrum and institutions reliant on domestic, commonwealth-funded students – who have a small ,but financially significant, number of fee paying students – at the other? Future deals done in Parliament may mediate the impact of the reforms on some of those institutions most adversely affected, but I fear that recalibrating in this way will simply result in robbing 'Peter to pay Paul'.

The money made by the international and domestic success of Australian universities has been used to enhance the educational experience and drive world-class research and innovation. it has underpinned much of the past decade's investment in student services, infrastructure and academic talent.

It is no accident that Australian universities punch well above their weight in international rankings and that international education – worth $20.3 billion per year– is our nation's third largest export.

The Australian university sector has taken years to build. Government and Australia may be about to learn that it will take no time at all to break, and forever to repair.

David Grant is Pro Vice Chancellor (Business) at Griffith University and Secretary of the Australian Business Deans Council.