Vanstone under pressure over Austudy
By Marina Cameron
Education minister Amanda Vanstone was forced into another embarrassing situation on February 20, when pressure from the Senate and Liberal backbenchers forced a partial back-down on tighter Austudy means-testing.
She announced new guidelines simply to redress departmental bungles which cut 8500 eligible students off Austudy. However, an estimated 60,000 students will still have their Austudy lowered or cancelled due to the introduction of parental means-testing up to the age of 25 and a tightened actual means-test.
The 1997 Austudy application forms failed to explain that students' expected Austudy should not be included as income, and they "double counted" loans in terms of expenditure (i.e. the initial outlay and then any repayments on the loan).
Students were told that they couldn't just correct their forms and would have to apply for a formal review, taking up to eight weeks. Students can now bypass this process.
The new guidelines also restrict the departmental practice of using overblown figures drawn from data on average spending and savings (instead of the applicant's own figures) when assessing a family's wealth.
This hit rural and regional applicants hardest, many of whom have assets but little disposable income. Liberal and National backbenchers from rural and regional electorates lobbied for changes after they reportedly received more complaints than they had on gun laws last year.
Changes to Austudy were supposed to be aimed at stopping wealthy families from "rorting" the system. Evidence of rorting is mainly anecdotal. The crackdown on administration, and massive cuts to the student benefits section of the Department of Education, have instead hit the poor.
This is intentional, and likely to be repeated in other areas. The Australian reported on February 27 that the minister for social security, Senator Jocelyn Newman, plans to extend the means-test to all social welfare.
Resistance national coordinator Sean Healy told Green Left, "The idea of 'user-pays' has crept in to the extent that many people are convinced against totally lifting means-testing because then the rich would get Austudy. Means-testing always hits those least able to pay for education. The only way to guarantee equal access is to make student income support universal and unconditional."
Vanstone out?
This latest incident is unlikely to improve the standing of Vanstone as education minister. Speculation is growing that sections of the Liberal Party would like to replace Vanstone with current schools minister David Kemp (due to his recent success in pushing school privatisation).
Healy stated, "It doesn't really matter who the minister is. The Liberal Party, like the Labor Party before them, have a clear agenda in terms of education — cutting funding, making students pay more and structuring universities more to the needs of business.
"Forcing Vanstone to resign would be a start, but much more needs to change. The real thing that determines what ministers can do in their portfolio is how good they are at selling unpopular 'reforms' and derailing opposition. The real possibility to work change lies in mobilising public opposition against education restructuring around an active campaign."
Gone too far?
The Liberals' savage cuts to Austudy and higher education have raised murmurings that things have perhaps gone too far, even amongst those who agree that education is there to provide cheap graduates and research to business, rather than as a social service and resource.
Education quality and research innovation are essential to international competitiveness of business; business needs skilled personnel; and the university also plays an important role in creating ideology and legitimating the current system.
The Australian editorialised on February 22 that "the nation's development depends on the development of human potential" and that because of Austudy cuts, "many of today's students are less capable of thinking and studying, because of the long hours of causal work forced on them by their need to cover living expenses".
Healy commented, "The government is driving to cut government spending, but coming up against a public concerned with the access and equity consequences, and a business sector which wants all the benefits without having to pay too much. The people caught in the middle, and being squeezed for all the money they are worth, are students.
"By organising students and protesting, we can exploit these contradictions. Resistance encourages all students, staff and members of the community to support the campaign against education cuts and get involved in the national day of action on March 26."