In other words, it is because the Federal (Howard) Government wants a two-tier education system favouring the rich and forcing those parents to get rich to attain the same education for their children or else students drop out and get a low-paid job or make do with less and potentially lower-quality education while mixing with similarly disadvantaged students learning the same education. Such a system is considered by McGaw to be in stark contrast to the top performing education system of Finland where people demand a strong public education system with little difference among schools.
Unfortunately, it seems to be too late. The Australian model of school favoured by the Federal Government "allows unequal opportunity for choice, since the extent of choice is related to capacity to pay." (Patty, Anna. Schooling choice leaves poorest to struggle: study: The Sydney Morning Herald. 8-9 July 2006, p.5.)
To maximise the Government's investment in universities in terms of the commercial value of the research to the Australian economy, the government must reduce the freedom and creativity of "long-term" thinking R- and L-brain individuals and groups/organisations in what they can achieve by intruding into the affairs of everyone so that hopefully people will follow exactly what the L-brain government wants.
For example, the latest discussion paper from the Australian Federal (Howard) Government on the current education system at universities now suggests the government wants to reduce the freedom of academics in conducting original "long-term" thinking research and force many of them into teaching positions within very specific subjects which the Government and current businesses would approve. As Labor's Kim Carr said after reviewing the discussion paper and the proposed bill for research-intensive universities:
'This is telling you what you can study, what you can teach, and what you can think.' (1)
Carr describes the proposed bill as the most draconian legislation since the Menzies Government attempted to ban the Communist Party.
To make this proposed bill a reality, the Federal Government's Education Minister Brendan Nelson and former Workplace Relations Minister Tony Abbott must tie extra public funding for universities to individual workplace agreements known as Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs) designed to force staff, academics and researchers to perform to the standards and in the subject areas required by the Federal Government. As Vice-Chancellor Roger Dean of the University of Canberra (UCAN) said:
'[The agreements are] very invasive, intrusive proposals, which are far more extreme than what was promised by Dr Nelson who has somewhat misled us over phraseology and emphasis.
'It is more logical that we wait for further clarification [on these agreements]. I would prefer to negotiate on known income flows [UCAN may receive up to A$2 million in public funding if it follows the Government's workplace reforms] rather than insecure predictions.' (2)
Never mind, given the way an increasing number of people in management are running Australian universities these days (ie. like a business), we can be sure the people running the universities will agree to anything if it means getting extra funding for their universities. As for students looking to help maintain the current economy, they can be assured of a wide range of 'government-approved through careful public funding' courses to keep them preoccupied so long as they find a job at the end of the day and can make money for the economy.
The outcome of all these changes to universities is probably best summed up by Professor Janice Reid of the Female Orphan School on the edge of the University of Western Sydney's Parramatta campus:
'For better or worse, the Nelson reforms will set the direction for the higher education sector for many years to come.
'If for worse, it will be a retreat to an elite system like that of the post war years when a handful of universities admitted a handful of school students who may or may not have been the brightest in the land, but who were certainly society's privileged. In such a system money will talk.' (3)
NOTE: How do we know if the original research conducted by truly creative "thinking" academics and other people not in management positions will not solve all problems of the day, whether it be social, economic or political? By not doing the quality, creative and broad-minded research (or forcing academics to have little time other than do teaching only), we will never know. If we try to split research from teaching and vice versa and then emphasise the importance of teaching through year-long teacher training courses for academics, we could lose sight of where we are going. And while we follow what everyone else is doing like a herd of sheep (which is what the government wants), society could be blindly headings towards what is potential a massive social, political and economic catastrophe in the near future if we are not too careful. It is no wonder the employment section of newspapers are filled with so many management positions with 6-figure salaries. The Government needs to get similar-thinking people to fill the roles so it can get what it wants. In the meantime, all the more balanced ex-management staff have decided to go on their seachange experiences.
## SPECIAL UPDATE ##
September 2003
The Australian Federal (Howard) Government now wants to get uniformity in the quality of the teaching at universities by all academics. The latest government-commissioned study (what would a non-government-commissioned study reveal?) allegedly found deficiencies in the way academics prepare, deliver and receive support for their teaching obligations to students (This may be true for some academics who are probably not well-trained teachers. But what do the students think? Are they happy with the teaching arrangements? Are they completing their work and hence given time to think about broader issues? And are academics given time to complete their own research work before embarking on delivering a quality teaching course?). So what's the solution? The Government wants to start introducing specially-designed courses and possible exams to ensure all academics meet the minimum teaching standards required by the Government. Well, at least on the positive side, every student lucky enough to get into university (at substantial costs mind you unless you are on a scholarship or from a rich family) will get a good and standardised education in the areas the Government wants the students to go into when maintaining the current economic US-style democratic system in Australia.
Nothing like following your own dreams as so many parents would like to say to their children. With the way things are going, perhaps we should change this to, "Follow the dreams of the Federal Government my son because this is where you future lies in society".
It must make people wonder whether the Federal (Howard) Government has a very close relationship with the infamous Stars Wars villain known as Darth Vader? Yes, the dark side of the force is with the Government!
## SPECIAL UPDATE ##
February 2004
The Federal (Howard) Government is trying to look like the good guys in the Australian community by claiming some of the money earned from HECS is being used to help low-income families to have their children attend schools and universities. This is probably true. But there is no escaping the fact that education will no longer be seen as a basic right for everyone unless you have the money.
## SPECIAL UPDATE ##
March 2004
A growing number of people are working together to provide free education online (eg. SUNRISE). The education, available from some locations online, is becoming broader and will go beyond the standard courseware for supporting the current economy.
## SPECIAL UPDATE ##
June 2004
A large number of Australian university students are realising how much they would love to have millionaires Kerry Packer or Rupert Murdoch as a close family relative these days. Leaving aside the richer international students who haven't much to complain about except meeting the expectations of their parents (eg. Asian students coming to Australia to learn funnily enough Asian studies when they could be at home learning this better in their own country), many are facing financial difficulties with a growing HECS debt and the cost of books, rental properties, and food. A growing number of students are quitting university studies to find a job or start a new business of their own (usually at home). Other students are willing to sell themselves as sex slaves or appearing in lingerie catalogues to help make ends meet.
This latter situation is supported by Melbourne researcher Dr Sarah Lantz when she claimed in June 2005 that 10 per cent of all sex workers are made up of students. (Bellamy, Elizabeth. Financial problems shackling students: The Canberra Times. 18 June 2005, p.7.)
Now the Eros Foundation has come forth to support the claims with a spokeswoman saying a survey was conducted several years ago revealing a figure closer to 15 per cent instead of the 10 per cent of sex workers being university or senior school students. Now she suspects the figure is as high as 25 per cent given the high costs of education today:
'I think that figure has increased. I'd put it as high as 25 per cent.' (Lord, Gillian. 25pc of prostitutes students, says sex industry: The Canberra Times. 25 June 2005, p.1.)
A young lady going by the name of Silk at Northside Studios in Canberra is suggesting an even higher figure when she said:
'We currently have about 16 girls on our books. Of those, about seven are uni students who have been with us over a year. Another three are school students, over 18 years of age and finishing Year 12. It's very common for us to have school or uni students.' (Lord, Gillian. 25pc of prostitutes students, says sex industry: The Canberra Times. 25 June 2005, p.1.)
If this statement is true, it would represent a figure closer to about 60 per cent although one would assume this figure would have to vary slightly from brothel-to-brothel. But still, this is a disturbingly high percentage.
One such student who can actually speak from experience is 19-year-old Hannah, a Year 12 student at a prominent Canberra school. She confirms the reason for entering the sex industry is almost entirely because of the $1,800 debt she has managed to acquired through education and wants to pay it off. Earning between A$800 and $1,200 per week, Hannah says she can pay it off in a matter of a couple of months and then concentrate on her studies. Compared this to the low wages from retail and fast food chains and she could be working for 12 months or more to pay off the debt and it might affect her grades.
Hannah said:
'Mum and Dad see it as a profession. Dad doesn't have a problem as long as I save half of what I earn. I do it for the money, to help pay for the extra courses I'm taking. My teachers are not fine with it, but they are supportive and help me with my schoolwork and make sure it gets done on time.' (Lord, Gillian. 25pc of prostitutes students, says sex industry: The Canberra Times. 25 June 2005, p.1.)
But does it affect the students by the experience? Kate, another sex worker aware of the student situation, said:
'Often they are the more successful workers because they are working for a set period of time and they are definite about their motivation. The girls who are adversely affected are those who feel they have no choice, single mothers or drug addicts, for whom prostitution comes second to something else.' (Lord, Gillian. 25pc of prostitutes students, says sex industry: The Canberra Times. 25 June 2005, p.1.)
Kate is also prepared to say some students work privately than in a parlour. So exactly have many students actually resort to sex for money may be harder to determine.
Brian Johnstone of Leura, NSW, tried to put a positive spin on the debt and the situation some students are finding themselves in when he said:
'I think student debt is a good idea. It shows students what their future adult life is all about, only earlier.' (The Sydney Morning Herald: Early financial lesson (Opinion & Letters). 23-24 April 2005, p.30.)
No doubt he is speaking from a position of authority and experience by being a student himself in today's climate. Somehow we think not.
Anyway, drinking at university bars is already seen as another long-held and somewhat necessary Australian tradition for some university students. We can now see why.
## SPECIAL UPDATE ##
July 2004
It looks like all the christmas fun have come at once with news of an election looming in the not too distant future. And guess what the Federal (Howard) Government is doing to improve its chances of staying in office? It would appear as if the Government has promised to increase funding to education and health. Amazing, isn't it? Only last year the Government was complaining of not having enough money for education (and health) never mind reducing the HECS fees, and now we realise they had the constipated money stashed away in the bowels of government for a long time and is only just coming out of their well-used orifices ready to buy the votes of young Australians. Unfortunately, it is far too late because it all stinks. One may understand why the Government has to do it. The Prime Minister's political advisers are noticing the polls could swing either way for Labor or Liberal. It may only take a few thousand votes to make the difference. So what better way to get the extra thousand votes or thereabouts for the Government than by sucking up to enough students with the promise of extra funding. It is unfortunate the Government still thinks it can make dummies out of the voters.
## SPECIAL UPDATE ##
1 July 2005
The Australian Federal (Howard) Government intends to revisit the individual workplace agreements now that it has control of the upper house. Legislation will be introduced to force universities to offer individual employment contracts or AWAs to staff employed after 1 May 2005, and all employees must receive that offer by the end of August 2006 if increases in funding from the government is to be provided to the universities.
Staff can still choose to join collective award schemes.
Apart from trying to control academics in the things they are allowed to do for the Government through the powerful instrument of funding, the Government also needs to implement a program to see what students at universities are doing just to see if the money is being used appropriately and students are doing the right thing. For example, the Australian Federal (Howard) Government has revealed under relentless pressure from students, unions and senators during the last day of hearings in the Senate inquiry into the Government's higher education reforms that the Government will give the Secretary at the Education Department the powers to send an officer onto university campuses and audit records on any student, researcher, academic or other people it likes and demand personal information.
The excuse given by Bill Burmester, the group manager of the department's Higher Education Group, for this "Big Brother" approach to policing students and academics is presumably to assure accountability for government funding and that students have paid their HECS and other government loans. As Burmester said:
'Obviously in the administration of Commonwealth funds we need to track them until they repay their loan.' (4)
In other words, the student information already provided to the Tax Office when signing up for a HECS debt is clearly not enough for the Australian Government. Burmester claims it is okay to also ask administration staff at universities to give a complete life history on the students including details of their medical records, what they are doing by way of studies and the sorts of affiliations they have with certain groups, even right down to the kind of political statements the students have said in their essays and so on.
To alleviate the concerns of everyone with this controversial legislation, Burmester says any information gathered will be thoroughly protected under the Privacy Act. Sure it will! And there goes out the window a few political career ambitions of some students! Heck! It may even help the Government quietly determine the exact insurance premiums students will have to pay when they get a job or whether they can get a job at all in the public service!
We wouldn't be surprised if Burmester was probably scratching half his nose, had a twitch in one eye, and a frog in his throat when he said this to the media.
Or could it be a way for the Government to stop what they believe to be a handful of people in society rorting the social security system by claiming they are unemployed when in fact they might be working as researchers for certain university academics and hence have not declared their earnings to the Department of Social Security at Centrelink?
Or the Government may simply want to get rid of those independent researchers at universities who don't have to pay money of any kind to the Government to access university resources and knowledge and eventually do their damaging research work on the current economic system, certain Government policies, and perhaps new recycling technologies?
Either that, or the Government can't cope with the numbers at universities. Or the Government is quietly trying to be filthy rich and then unveil at the right time just how well the Australian economy is going (in the hope of being re-elected) in which case the Government certainly can afford to pay for broad-thinking and more "longer-term" research at universities (and also health, and more permanent jobs, and...). So what the excuse?
Yes, there are certainly many potential reasons why managing people within government-funded universities is necessary. The Government probably has a lot to worry about.
## SPECIAL UPDATE ##
26 November 2003
Things are looking a little desperate for Education Minister Brendan Nelson this week with the realisation too many universities are still not happy with the education reforms. Mr Nelson wants the reforms to be passed before the end of the year and has decided the best way to get what he wants is to throw a few more hundreds of million of dollars in the direction of universities.
If that doesn't work, expect Mr Nelson to make his own reforms more palatable to the universities. In essence, Mr Nelson will need a bloody miracle to get exactly what he wants.
## SPECIAL UPDATE ##
5 December 2003
Mr Nelson has been forced to drop the major sticking point in his reforms to tie individual workplace agreements with government funding in order to pass through the reforms. A major loss for the Federal Government, but in the end the Government has achieved the major goal of eventually forcing all universities to raise its own revenue by charging whatever they want for courses. Because once all the sweetners from the Government are exhausted after five years (eg. extra university funding, more scholarships positions, a higher HECS repayment threshold etc), the universities will be on their own and soon the cost of courses will have to increase dramatically to maintain the services and pay the high costs of limited resources and high student numbers or else reduce the funding in certain "commercially unviable" areas. For now, the increase in the cost of many courses (except to train teachers and nurses) will be minimal (although we hear the students will not be jumping up and down with joy with the cost increase). Later, the students will be expecting big increases in their course fees. The five-years period is just the Government's way of trying to ease in the pain for everyone and make everyone accept there is going to be a cost for all things and that this cost will continue to rise just like everything else.
Welcome to the user-pays system!
As for university administrators and the members of the management board, they see it as a major win. Why? There is a realisation of extra government funding over the next five years while they are still running the universities. So now the existing management boards can spend the money doing a few cosmetic changes around the campuses just to give the impression to enough rich international students that Australian universities are doing well and a good place to study (just make sure you bring your wallet), and to boost their own salaries and superannuation. After that, most of the management staff will probably retire early, leaving behind the rather unfortunate up and coming executive young guns to make the hard decision of seriously raising course fees and increasing international student numbers (which will be chosen on the students' ability to pay rather than a system based on academic ability and original thinking).
A growing number of Vice-Chancellors at universities are arguing in favour of the Government's recommendations to pay more for education because more students can be accepted into universities (each helping to reduce the overall costs of the education). In other words, as resources to run the unsustainably high population numbers in universities dwindle and the cost to maintain the resources required for the universities to provide educational services must rise, more and more students must pay for their education in order to give everyone else a better chance of getting an education at a reasonable cost.
It is the old "supply and demand" concept where people have to pay more when supply is limited due to high demands for the supply by too many people asking for the same things. But if there are enough people getting educated, the cost won't be that high in the long-term.
If this isn't a population problem, then what is?
## SPECIAL UPDATE ##
20 June 2004
A growing number of university students are turning to prostitution to make enough money to pay for university fees, books, rent and food. Evidence for this can be observed on the Internet (Q. How many students are selling pictures of themselves on subscription web sites? A. Far too many to count), mailing catalogues and through private talks with students. The money available from the Federal Government through Youth Allowance and part-time jobs are not helping the students survive easily enough. As a result, students are appearing in lingerie catalogues and others are using their desktop publishing and web designing skills to create and publish extraordinarily explicit scenes of sex in the bedrooms of students and their clients (beyond the payment received from the clients).
## SPECIAL UPDATE ##
20 June 2004
Now that virtually all major universities in the inner cities (and the CSIRO) have been financially bribed into focussing on purely practical and immediately commercially-viable research of benefit to the Australian economy in its current form in return for extra funding from the Federal Government (or else focus on teaching-for-profit and nothing else), the effort to get the more independent regional and outer suburban universities to focus mainly on teaching rather than research work has stepped up another notch under the Australian Federal (Howard) Government with claims that the Government wants to change the accreditation requirements through the National Protocols of Higher Education.
The changes to the protocols by Education Minister Brendan Nelson would see the definition of a "university" broadened to the point where practically any profit-motivated business operator wanting to deliver a course to the public can describe his/her business as a university of international standing, thereby forcing all other universities to consider more teaching positions and courses of benefit to the Australian economy to get the funding.
The Federal Government is disguising the move as enhancing international competitiveness and encouraging "more diversity in the higher education sector".
But as Opposition education spokeswoman Jenny Macklin said:
'The Howard Government's review of the national protocols could mean regional and outer suburban universities lose research funding as part of a push to establish teaching-only universities.
'The National Protocols of Higher Education are a vital tool in protecting Australian universities and students against unscrupulous fly-by-night operators trying to cash in on Australia's strong international reputation.' (5)
National Tertiary Education Union assistant secretary Ted Murphy agrees the universities should be competitive on the world market, but he believes there are better ways of going about it. He is concerned that such changes "would only drive down quality across the sector and confuse both Australian and overseas students about the nature of Australia's university system." (6)
## SPECIAL UPDATE ##
February 2005
Research centres at universities and government-funded museums are being forced to publish "hard to immediately commercisalise" scientific results to the general public and media to help get the long-term funding they need to continue the work. Examples include the Melbourne Museum where the curator Mr Tom Rich has gambled on publishing the results of a study on a tiny fossilized mammilian monotreme jaw and how it can change the scientific community's view of how mammals developed over 115 million years ago. The study is long-term and began in 2002 when the jaw was found. It took until April 2003 to extract the fossil from rocks and a further 17 months to learn of its secrets which now has the international scientists buzzing with interest. Funding is still extremely tight for this project as Mr Rich has revealed to the media. We can see why. It is hard to equate a fossilized bone to greater economic benefits for the Australian Federal (Howard) Government. He feels such public announcements in international journals such as Science is one of the best ways to get the government to see the value of long-term research work.
## SPECIAL UPDATE ##
16 March 2005
Australian Education Minister Brendan Nelson is again getting up the noses of the students with such incredible ease. This time he is trying to breakdown low-cost support services for students and force them to pay the market rate by arguing students should be allowed a choice whether or not to pay compulsory union fees, now totalling A$170 million per year from all the universities combined.
To add to this argument, Nelson claims all the money earned from union fees are being used by students for political aims, such as demonstrations and to bail students out of jails if they get arrested by the police. However when ABC presenter Kerry O'Brien of the 7.30 Report asked Nelson to give an example of his claims, he could not (i) provide a specific example; and (ii) give reference to where he obtained the alleged evidence for his claims.
If we look more deeply into Nelson's aims, it is clear he wants to put an end to any kind of unionism in Australia. The university union is no exception to the rule. Yet what Nelson doesn't acknowledge or appreciate is how the fees are actually helping to reduce or eliminate the costs of child care, legal advice, nightime public transport costs, healthy food and beverages (crucial for the development of a healthy mind), access to sports facilities (crucial for exercising to maintain a healthy mind and body), clubs (social activities), access to counsellors and psychologists (a worthwhile service while Nelson continues to be Education Minister) and many other services for students (possibly including political clubs).
Already the high costs of accommodation, HECS, and general expenses such as clothes, petrol, maintenance costs, and public transport are putting a burden on average students (we shall ignore rich overseas students). Combine this with the government ripping out a whopping A$5 billion worth of public funding to university education forcing the cost of courses and materials to go up and a number of students have no choice but to find part-time work on top of their already stressful full-time studies just to pay for the costs.
Now Nelson wants to make students work even harder by paying for their university services at current market rates or don't use the services at all (thereby putting people out of work and forcing companies outside to offer the services) just to add to the extra stress.
Or more likely the Federal Government is on the lookout for new skilled young workers from the university to fill the skill shortages in certain jobs (eg. cleaning toilets and serving food to customers). And we can't forget how much the Federal Government loathes campus political clubs and wants to do anything to stop some of the union fees reaching these clubs.
However, Australian Prime Minister John Howard is careful to say the reason for abolishing mandatory student union fees is to let people who don't want to pay the fees the choice not to. As Mr Howard said:
'...this is the 21st century: a minority of the funding of these multi-million-dollar operations in universities are funded by compulsory student union fees.
'I say to those people who think that it's necessary to have a compulsory flat tax at the university gate, why is it that a single mother with two children and a mortgage to support who wants to study to be a nurse, should be subsidising abseilers or rugby players?' (Fraser, Andrew. We won't budge: Nelson: The Canberra Times. 26 June 2005, p.10.)
Yes, but if the single mother wants free child care, access to low-cost or free health care services, the sports union and anything she needs, she can get it at the university after paying the student fee. Otherwise, she would have to pay the commercial rate outside the university for these services.
If we took this statement from Nelson at face value and push it to its logical conclusion, then why is it that taxpayers are forced to pay compulsory tax and have no choice where their taxes go? Isn't the Federal Government acting as a union in itself by forcing taxpayers to pay tax for some of the national services provided to the community?
Assuming Nelson is trying to be serious (we hear Nelson's argument for choice as the reason for abolishing mandatory student union fees is part of his "planet common sense for the 21st century" in his own words), why can't taxpayers decide whether they should pay tax and if so where it should go? Sounds like another "common sense" idea. As one Australian citizen said:
'If I had a choice, I certainly wouldn't be paying for:
'(i) Government advertising on television, radio and newspapers.
'(ii) Politicians' excessive superannuation payouts.
'(iii) Keeping children and other people in detention centres.
'(iv) Spending money on defence and funding war efforts which in itself is a form of terrorism.'
In which case, shouldn't we see the end of the Federal Government assuming Nelson wants to end unionism in Australia today?
NOTE: All the R-wing (L-brain) governments want in implementing these socially-divisive policies is to maintain the current economic/capitalist system where people are not permitted to think but instead follow orders from business and political leaders with absolute military precision. The truth is, governments are more worried about losing their position of power and all the money they have acquired through past business dealings (eg. in oil and gas and other non-recycling industries etc), investments on the stock market (again in the wrong industries) and politicians' salaries and super. L-wing (more R-brain) people are usually not as rich and powerful. Therefore these people tend to value good thinking (often developed during university life) to change the way we do things on a grand scale, often for the better. If there is a way people can live that would solve all of the problems in the current economic system, L-wing people are more likely to embrace the ideas.
## SPECIAL UPDATE ##
As 1 July 2005 looms as the date when the Howard Government has total control of the Senate, university heads are looking to see whether it is possible to redirect some research funds towards supporting the student services. But as the law of economics dictate in today's world, someone will have to pay. And it is likely the costs will be shared across the board by way of costly student food, books and other services within university campuses. Or else significantly increase the price of popular adult continuing education courses.
## SPECIAL UPDATE ##
27 June 2005
The purpose of getting students to pay for education and have a big HECS debt is to drive students towards finding jobs to pay off the debt and support the economy. The purpose of universities attracting full-fee paying students is to make money as government funding dwindles.
Now an Asian expert has warned China, Malaysia and other Asian nations are funneling the knowledge acquired from Australian universities and the money from booming Asian economies to build world-class universities of their own to compete with the Australian universities. It won't be long, say within 10 to 15 years from now, when Australian universities must face a massive reduction in full-fee paying. Soon the less prestigious universities must compete for more full-paying students or grovel for more funding from the Federal government.
The winners in this competition will be two or three big world-class Australian universities such as the Australian National University which may or may not need funding from full-fee paying students. All other universities must attract full-fee paying students, disappear or transform themselves into a different type of education system, probably geared more towards supporting the commercially-driven industries and business.
These other universities may also be more willing to accept Federal Government demands for individual workplace agreements for all university staff and providing teaching courses in areas required to support the economy in order to obtain extra government funding. Or else become smaller private universities funded entirely by rich Australian students.
The future for public universities will be privatisation of education by stealth with no original creativity in research.
Because, in the words of Australian Education Minister Brendan Nelson, "I think education is a privilege". This official statement was televised in the ABC documentary program Four Corners on 27 June 2005.
But as Sally Longhurst of Parramatta said:
'In a recent episode of Four Corners, when asked if he thought of university education as a right or a privilege, Dr Brendan Nelson said he thought of it as a privilege.
'The Macquarie Dictionary defines privilege as something available to someone "in a favoured position". By this definition, university education is a privilege in that it's available to those who demonstrate the academic ability to study at that level.
'Tragically, the current Federal Government's restrictions to university funding, and the hefty fees imposed on students, are making university education something available to the privileged — those who have the financial means to gain a tertiary education.
'A university education is the right of all members of our community. Aren't we the lucky country?
'Why, then, should people who have the academic skill, but aren't wealthy, miss out?
'Had it not been for the financial assistance granted to university students by the Whitlam Labor government, my siblings and I would not have had a university education. Our family could not have afforded to pay for one child at university, let alone three.
'We are on our way to becoming a country in which only the financially privileged will be able to study at university, and that is a great injustice.' (The Sunday Telegraph: Uni shouldn't be a question of money (Your say). 10 July 2005, p.88.)
However, we should also add that not having the academic ability does not mean you are not given the right to a university education. Because if we support every human being, the academic ability will come to everyone. Some people only call university study a privilege because not everyone is supported to achieve great things.
University study is no different from self-education, private research, research and development in a business or the works. Universities are designed to train people to think more critically at problems and so go into greater depth until a creative and rational solution is found.
University study is no different from the studies people do in their everyday lives outside a campus.
## SPECIAL UPDATE ##
9 July 2005
The federal Coalition partner, the Nationals, is said to be not happy with the introduction of voluntary student unionism or so the Australian people are told. Two National Party senators, Barnaby Joyce and Fiona Nash, have made it clear they will not pass the legislation. Other senators may soon follow. Now the Liberal Party side of the Federal Government is claiming to be hammering through a compromise package. The compromise would see extra funding to regional universities and allow existing universities to partially keep the student fees so long as the money does not go to political clubs.
Education Minister Brendan Nelson appears to deny this saying from Malaysia, "I have received no such [compensation] proposal from the National Party in relation to regional universities."
On the second count of a splitting of the bill, Mr Nelson's spokesman Yaron Finkelstein said his party had ruled out this possibility two weeks ago.
The president of the Queensland National Party Terry Bolger said he expected the Liberal Party to back down saying, "I think there will be a compromise, there's nothing official yet."
The Australian Prime Minister Mr John Howard is believed to be heading the move to find a compromise. (Doherty, Linda & Wainwright, Robert. Deal on to keep partial uni fees: The Sydney Morning Herald. 9-10 Julu 2005, p.3.)
## SPECIAL UPDATE ##
2 October 2005
While the present Australian Federal (Howard) Government remains in office for another two years, the only hope struggling universities have to survive in today's climate while getting funding from the government is to take on a more entrepreneurial approach to running a university and selling new ideas from their own research and/or asking students to pay more for their studies. As Professor Steven Schwartz, a New Yorker brought in as the new vice-chancellor and the key to the survival of Macquarie University in Sydney, he believes universities should be run like Wall Street in New York:
'You only have to work at a uni for a week to know that it's not a business.' (Sheehan, Paul. Wall Street comes to campus: The Sydney Morning Herald. 1-2 October 2005, p.1.)
Be prepared for a world where universities will turn into teaching factories churning out business-oriented people who will be ruthlessly efficient, following very precise methods of doing things (until they go back to university to learn new approaches), and selling anything for the employers.
As for the academics, they will be required to not only teach, but continuously churn out commercially-useful research solutions for the business community.
Until something drastic changes this attitude (eg. the environment puts a brake on many products produced by businesses and/or people decide to create a new and better society going beyond the business mentality), the immediate future is to maintain the capitalist system at all costs.
## SPECIAL UPDATE ##
9 December 2005
Realising it has full control of the Senate in both houses of parliament, the Federal Government effectively gagged any further debate over the issue of voluntary unionism. Whether the Australian people like it or not, they will have the legislation passed into law starting in 2006. Opposition parties the Greens, the Democrats and the Labor had barely 30 minutes to discuss the amendments. And no more than a couple of hours to discuss the contentious issue of foreign universities. Afterwards, Family First Senator Steve Fielding gave the numbers the Government was seeking to have the legislation passed.
It comes not long after the Australian National University in Canberra announced a 25 per cent increase in HECS fees only to learn later that it may have to ask students to pay more to retain existing student services thanks to the determination of the Federal Government to have its legislation passed. Other universities may not be so lucky with word that student services will disappear or reduce in numbers (possibly to be replaced by commercial services where the students pay the normal rate as the public does). It is either that or cross your fingers and hope enough students choose to pay the union fees.
Knowing the HECS fees have risen, somehow we feel this is unlikely.
The hardest hit by the changes will be regional and country universities whose low-earning students and the chancellors themselves may not be in a financial position to afford supporting existing student services.
And all this to entice students to the wonderful world of supporting your Australian economy through any job you can find, even if it means working on a temporary and low pay basis and working long hours all thanks to the IR reforms Australians had to have. Thanks Mr Howard. Hope you enjoy your Christmas break!
As J.F. Quinn of Carlton North in Victoria said:
'Since 1996, the Howard Government has chiselled away at university funding, and been increasingly interventionist in the micro-management of higher education. Perhaps this is motivated by a desire to crush supposed hotbeds of left-wing activism, or perhaps it is to bring universities into line with the politicisation of other public institutions, such as the public service and judiciary. Either way, Australia is losing out.' (The Sydney Morning Herald: Under attack (Opinion and Letters). 17-18 December 2005, p.26.)
As Mr Howard attempts to get more students into the employment market, strangely foreign universities have begun to sprout in Australia thinking there must be a gluttony of students looking to study. Obviously not for attracting the financially-struggling students who are thinking of entering the workforce, these universities will almost certainly be looking for high-fee paying students in Australia, thinking these are where the smartest students will be found. Surely there is a problem with this logic.
Among the first foreign universities to appear is Carnegie Mellon University of Pittsburgh, USA. It will open in Adelaide in March 2006.
## SPECIAL UPDATE ##
31 December 2005
To make students forget the latest changes, the Federal (Howard) Government has permitted an increase in Austudy payments of between A$8.20 and A$10.70 per fortnight. Hopefully the cost of that extra milkshake and potato chips every fortnight will make all the difference. Although we hear student fees and the price of other essential materials for studying including food on campus have risen too much to allow for it.
## SPECIAL UPDATE ##
2 September 2006
The ANU, being the darling of Mr John Howard in performing research such as nuclear power and international terrorism and islamic studies in favour of Federal Government policies, has managed to starve off for this year the sudden loss of funds to essential student services since voluntary unionism was enacted. About $1 million will be siphoned off from an endowment fund in the university's administration to support existing student services. Not so lucky is the University of Canberra with its strong international student base which is not able to match the costs of the student services (funds to the student association has dropped by 90 per cent). As a consequence, students on campus are forced to pay more for food, child care and other services or learn to live without. If students must pay, there is a corresponding increase in the number of female students (predominantly Asians) either trying to establish a relationship with anyone on campus having a paid position or provide sexual favours to anyone in return for money. This has been observed on a Friday afternoon as one Asian student has been seen loitering outside the glass doors wearing sexually provocative stockings and high dress waiting for some male to ask her for favours. For other students, it means increasing levels of personal stress to complete assignments, not feeding themselves well, or dropping out altogether.
The Federal Government continues to argue voluntary unionism gives choice for students to decide which servicews they wished to support. It is a pity paying taxes is not a voluntary thing as well.
