Opposing fees means opposing HECS
Comment by Alison Dellit
Seven years after its introduction, the Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS) seems almost a welcome relief in amongst postgraduate tuition fees, undergraduate fees, overseas fees, administration charges and illegal course fees. So what if it's $3500-$5000 a year — at least if you don't have the cash right now you can defer payment and continue to study.
As more and more fees are introduced for higher education the pro-HECS lobby becomes stronger. Many students have swallowed the line that it is fair and proper that students contribute towards the cost of their education.
But the introduction of HECS by the previous Labor federal government was a deliberate step towards full up-front fees. HECS, and the associated idea that the "users" of education should pay for it, were the ice-breakers for the more thorough introduction of a privatised, money-based education system.
HECS was justified in the same way that work for the dole is now being justified. Education (and now unemployment benefits) is a privilege, not a right, and young people incur a debt to society when they receive an education (or unemployment benefits). They should repay this debt through a special charge (or by working for the dole).
This argument is often illustrated in government propaganda by hypothetical "case studies". I want to use some case studies of my own.
Take Jenny. Jenny lives in a rural community and has managed to make it to university by studying hard and receiving financial assistance through what is left of the Aboriginal education scheme. Jenny has wanted to be a lawyer in the Aboriginal Legal Service ever since her brother killed himself in custody when she was 13. She does one year of a Bachelor of Arts degree at Adelaide University and manages to gain entrance into law, a five-year degree.
At the end of her course she achieves her dream and is employed at the rate of $25,000 per year. While studying she accrued a "debt to society" of approximately $28,000, which she is paying off at a rate of $25 per week, probably for the rest of her life.
Then take James. When James leaves St Peters private school he makes the decision not to "impose himself" on society by going to university and instead seeks work straight away. He gains the chief executive officer position at a small newspaper chain coincidentally owned by his father.
James increases the newspaper's circulation, halves the number of employees and focuses more on exposing the private lives of prominent citizens in the paper's pages. Seven years on, James is earning $3 million a year and doesn't owe society anything.
The concept of a "debt to society" is a little odd. Sure, many who go to university do eventually earn more than those who don't go to university. But with an efficient, progressive taxation system, those who earn more will contribute it back to society anyway. At least they should.
The purpose of HECS is to shift the cost of maintaining the education system from government and business (through the taxation system) on to students and their families. It's a tax on those who cannot afford to pay education fees up front — the working class.
Education is a precious resource for the whole of society. By charging for it, students are encouraged to see education simply as a ticket to a high-paying job (which they need in order to pay off their debt). Courses which seem less able to deliver them such a job become under-enrolled (five universities have scrapped Ancient Greek since 1992), and the knowledge of society as a whole becomes centred on that which makes money.
HECS is also a deterrent from study for those unsure about their potential income. HECS repayments now begin when your income hits $19,000 — or about $300 per week. That's pretty much when you find your first full-time job.
As government funding is rapidly stripped from the public education system, it is more important than ever to raise the banner of free education. We need to fight not only against HECS increases and further charges, but also against any move that forces students further into the role of consumers, and propels society into a user-pays hell.
[Alison Dellit is a member of Resistance and an activist at Newcastle University.]