A National Day of Action has been called on March 27th to rally against the prospect of university fee increases and the deregulation of the HECs loan scheme. On this day, the National Union of Students will march against universities and governments profiteering off students. University students from across Australia, in each capital city, will stand together to protect the quality of our education and the campaign needs you to take a stand. This is the first campaign against HECs deregulation in 2013, and undoubtedly it will not be the last.
By this stage, you may be wondering what HECs deregulation is and whether it really is as horrific as it sounds. The short answer is yes.
The long answer is that HECs fee deregulation is an unpredictable and perilous state of affairs for students. It would likely see the abolition of the set tuition fees that currently exist, thus creating a system in which universities could set their own fee rates. This stands in contrast to the current system where course fees are set by the government. Additionally, deregulation may result in the sale of student debt to private institutions, instead of it being held by the government through the Australian Tax Office (ATO). This may in turn lead to fees being charged as debt with interest, similar to a mortgage.
To provide some background to this foe, it is necessary to understand that tertiary education had been free since 1974. Both Julia Gillard (BA/ LLB University of Melbourne) and Tony Abbott (BEc/ LLB University of Sydney) graduated free of any form of HECs debt or student loan to repay.
However, free tertiary education came to an end in 1989 under Hawke. It became apparent that the federal government could no longer fiscally support free education and so the HECs loan scheme was introduced.
Since then student contributions have been steadily increased. The Howard government increased student contributions twice during their time in office. The first was only months after coming to power in 1996, with the introduction of the three-band system that still exists today. Under this system, fields such as nursing, education, science and maths fall into the first band, as they are considered bachelors of national importance. The lower price on these degrees operates as an incentive for students to enter into these occupations. Degrees like engineering, computing and health sciences fall into the middle band. The top band, which covers areas such as law, medicine, dentistry and commerce, include courses not seen as being of national importance as there is no deficit in the numbers of lawyers or business people in Australia. During this time tuition fees rose on average 20%.
Howard again raised fees by 25% in 2004. There were only minor effects on university enrolments, though there was a significant decrease in ENTER (now ATAR) requirements. On average, most courses dropped the entry requirements by 5 ENTER points. Universities struggled to attract students to fill their institutions with the new costs of higher education.
Some political groups, particularly the Coalition, seem intent on deregulating this system further thus charging students more to study at tertiary institutions. It is unfortunate that many university spokespeople, including Monash’s Vice Chancellor Ed Byrne, continue to push for this change and promote it on the national agenda.
Those that favour deregulation argue that just like utilities, airlines and banks our education needs to be deregulated. They believe that a deregulated system will provide more competition, thus lowering the cost of tertiary education.
However, universities are unlikely to lower their fees in a deregulated system because they believe that students will most likely pay the exorbitant prices anyway. If you thought that the cost of your degree was expensive, think again.
Even if competition was enhanced, the fact remains that students are not able to adequately respond to market forces and price competition as the majority of students attend universities that are close and convenient to their homes. Students make decisions based on cost of living pressures, with more students than ever living at home with their parents well into their late 20s and 30s.
The biggest risk in a deregulated system is that fees become so excessive that students are no longer able to access higher education, or that if they choose to study, they become so debt burdened that they spend their whole working life paying off fees. As it is, students already spend close to a decade paying off HECs fees. In contrast, when the system was introduced, it was thought that students would need only work for 6 months to be debt free.
A deregulated system is also a slight in the face of students who come from a low socio-economic background. If the government is serious about their target of 40% of 25 to 34 year olds having a bachelor degree by 2025 (a key recommendation of the Bradley review into Higher Education adopted by the Federal Government) then they must absolutely refrain from marginalising the largest sector of society who could make this goal a reality.
HECs deregulation is an affront to the notion of equality and justice. It is an affront to the idea that education is a right and not a privilege. It is an affront to our rights as students and to our future. This campaign is just beginning on March 27th, and will continue so the voice of students is heard at the Federal Election in September.
Don’t let your university take you for a ride. We are students, we are not for profit and neither is our education.
