By Alison Dellit
Students, vice-chancellors and university administrations have begun to prepare for an expected slash in higher education funding in the August budget.
So far the government has not set a figure on the funding cut, nor has it specified how these cuts will be made. However, trial balloons from Senator Amanda Vanstone (minister for education, employment, training and youth affairs) indicate that the plan is to reduce education funding by anything from $600 million up to $1 billion — 20% of the total.
Particularly ominous is Vanstone's statement to vice-chancellors in April. She informed them that the Liberals' pre-election promises (no up-front fees, retain Austudy, no cuts to higher education places) would no longer stand. This will likely be the most severe attack on education access and quality in the last 20 years.
The government is aiming both to cut the amount of money spent on higher education and to increase the money it receives from higher education. This is already producing a fight within and between universities. The vice chancellors of eight of the country's most prestigious universities have formed a lobby group to maximise the wealth and security of the older campuses.
The possible attacks can be divided into three categories: cuts in government spending; generating revenue directly to the government; and legislation to generate revenue on a university level.
There are really only two ways to cut expenditure: either the government cuts the numbers of places available to undergraduates, or it reduces the amount of funding per student.
In terms of generating revenue directly, the first and most obvious proposal is to introduce up-front fees. This could be done across the board, or, more likely, be introduced for second degrees or for students who take longer than the minimum time to finish their studies. The major problem for the government would be that this would put it directly in the firing line for any protests. The wave of protests against up-front fees for postgraduates indicates the level of opposition to fees that exists in the community.
Another option would be to increase HECS by 50-100% — either across the board or differentially. HECS could be higher, for example, dependent on the cost of course provision or the perceived financial gain from studying. The HECS repayment threshold could also be lowered.
This would bring in some immediate revenue for the government. However, there would likely be a significant response from students; lowering the repayment threshold any further would start to defeat the purpose of a deferred payment. The final option the government is canvassing involves charging interest on HECS.
While the government may well decide to make changes to the HECS system, they won't bring in the immediate income it is looking for. Most changes to HECS will pay off only after a few years. The third revenue raiser in this category would be significant changes to Austudy. Vanstone has already canvassed some of these. One option is that Austudy could be run as a total loans scheme, with students being required to pay off their Austudy once they are in the work force. Another is to further reduce eligibility for Austudy.
Generating revenue through institutions is probably the most attractive option for the government because it dodges the blame for the attacks. Instead, the attacks on education are implemented by the universities themselves. The first two options the government has canvassed here will involve changes to legislation.
The first is simply to allow universities to charge up-front fees to students who do not receive a place through the HECS-funded system. If this was implemented along with a cut to the number of HECS places, it would raise a significant amount of money. It is likely that this would be implemented slowly, with some institutions taking more fee paying students than others. This is the option that the "group of eight" vice-chancellors are lobbying for. Under such a system, more elite universities are likely to benefit, because they will be able to attract larger numbers of wealthy students.
John Howard supports this proposal as creating "diversity in our universities". The diversity he is talking about will mean rich, elite universities and poorer, less established universities.
The other possible legislative change would be to enable an up-front fee to be charged on top of HECS.
If the Liberals do decide to implement up-front fees, it is likely that they will do it on an institution-based level. This takes the heat off the government and also means there is less likely to be a nationwide fight back, because fees would be introduced at different times and in different ways on different campuses. It would also raise the greatest amount of revenue of any change so far canvassed. However, because such a fee would also be all inclusive, it has the potential to be politically very damaging for the government.
While these are the most horrific changes being canvassed in the budget, there are two changes that had been planned under Labor that will come into effect. One of these is the redefinition of the later years of courses such as law, medicine, nursing and teaching, and the classification of later years as postgraduate, which would enable the charging of fees. The second is the elimination of HECS-funded postgraduate courses, meaning all postgraduate courses would be up-front fee paying.
Under all of these options, education will become more accessible for those who have money. By moving towards a user pays system of education, the government will deny poorer students the right to study. As many as 10% of undergraduates could be paying fees next year, and all postgraduates. Austudy may not be an option for many people. Many courses are likely to be cut altogether.
Melbourne University student Phuong Dang, a Resistance activist, argues, "We have defend the concept of education as a right, not a privilege. Education should be funded by taxes on the corporations, which benefit out of having a skilled work force. This would make it accessible for all those who want to study.
"While the government is now saying equitable education is too expensive, business is paying less taxes than ever before. All students should get involved in the national week of demonstrations against these cuts."