By Marina Carman
While the discussion paper of the government's review of higher education will now not be released until this week, it seems set to recommend higher student fees and a voucher system of university funding.
Under the current system, government funding is provided through operating grants to institutions based on a predetermined quota of student places. Students pay between $3300 and $5500 to the government in the Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS).
In a voucher system, government funding is provided to students through vouchers, which can be spent at any university. Universities are funded according to the number of students they attract.
The discussion paper includes proposals for students still to pay a basic HECS-type fee for their voucher, while universities could also consider extra charges for high demand courses, or a partial up-front fee for all students to cover the difference between course costs and the voucher.
A voucher system is being touted as a means of allowing students more choice, and creating more efficiency through competition.
Vouchers would seriously threaten the existence of many smaller and regional universities (while allowing private institutions access to government funding), and are also a covert way of moving towards a system of full "user pays" education.
The executive director of the Australian Vice Chancellors Committee (AVCC), Stuart Hamilton, stated that the important question was not the mechanism of funding, but its amount. However, vouchers are a way of gaining acceptance for a more privatised and deregulated university sector.
It is also important where the money comes from. The media have described the idea as a "student-centred approach to university financing", but it is centred on students only as a funding source.
Vouchers will inevitably lead to more cuts in government funding, more competition in finding funding alternatives and more student charges.
This is generally how vouchers are seen, and explains why the government is reluctant to support them too openly. The discussion paper carefully avoids using the word "voucher", due in no small part to its resounding rejection as part of the Liberals' 1993 "Fightback!" policy.
The release of a new study by the AVCC on November 3 confirmed the unpopularity of further education privatisation.
Almost two-thirds of those polled indicated that more money should be spent on higher education, and 91% indicated that it should be increased or maintained.
Half of those polled thought that the government should be the main provider of this extra funding; 13% wanted more student contributions; 13% wanted it to come from industry; and 18% wanted a combination of all three.
It seems that the government is unlikely to adopt the scheme before the next election.
Michelle Grattan argued in the Financial Review on November 5 that federal education minister David Kemp is more likely to focus on vocational training at a secondary education level and other issues in his portfolio, such as jobs. The government appears unwilling to enter into another bruising battle with students, staff and other sections of the university sector, including parts of the AVCC.
The opposition spokesperson on education, Mark Latham, criticised the move towards more user charges. However, Latham and former education minister Peter Baldwin announced earlier this year that they would push for Labor to adopt a voucher-type system at its national conference in January.
Their proposal was for everyone to get an initial grant or loan to go into a learning account, which they would spend at institutions of their choice and "top up" throughout their lifetime with their own savings and superannuation.
What policy Labor adopts in January will indicate its reckoning of public sentiment, rather than any real commitment to what it would implement in government. Labor has given no commitment to reverse any of the measures implemented by the Liberals, or by itself during the 1980s.
There is some speculation that the review may not even present its final report, due in March, because of the departure of two review members to other high-paying posts. This backs speculation that the review has been more about taking the heat off the government, rather than setting immediate policy directions.
Whether the Liberals implement a voucher system before the next election, or Labor or Liberal implement it after, the discussion paper clearly indicates the direction preferred by big business and its friends in government.