news
campusreview.com.au
Student fee changes
up for debate
Photo: The Policy Shop
University groups got together
recently to discuss the
government’s proposed budgetary
changes to student fees.
By Loren Smith
T
hey were a suitably contrarian trio.
Professor Glyn Davis, vice-chancellor
of the University of Melbourne;
Sophie Johnston, president of the National
Union of Students; and Andrew Norton,
higher education program director at the
Grattan Institute, graced the stage at the State
Library of Victoria for a Grattan Institute Policy
Pitch event, co-hosted by the University of
Melbourne’s Policy Shop podcast.
With the help of moderator Jim
Middleton, they discussed, and sometimes
disputed, how fair student university fees
will be if the government’s budgetary
changes are passed.
The proposed changes include a fee
increase of 1.8 per cent next year, rising to
a total increase of 7.5 per cent by 2021, as
well as lowering the HELP loan repayment
threshold from 4 per cent per year based
on a $55,000 salary, to 1 per cent a year
based on a $42,000 salary.
FEE-HELP FLAWED?
Aside from higher fees, Johnston argued that
the HELP system itself is outdated. Given the
state of the labour market, she argued that
“people are now having to be retrained four
or five times throughout their lives”.
“Every time, they can’t rack up $50,000
or $60,000 in HELP debt. It will contribute
to ballooning government debt.”
Davis said in theory, not practice.
Although he supports lower student fees,
he maintained that “attempts to make fees
higher have always failed”.
“We are pushing against a firm public
opinion,” he said.
Also, he added, it’s not just about the
fees: it’s about the very nature of our
political system. He argued that our
hybrid welfare state predicates a certain
level of privatisation, and student fees are
commensurate with this.
DEMAND-DRIVEN CHALLENGES
The Gillard Labor government’s demand-
driven system was the next talking point.
Norton claimed this has enlarged the
university sector by 20–30 per cent, and
has consequently led to an increase in
government spending in this area, to an
unsustainable point, thus seemingly proving
his point that the student fee increases are
warranted.
Johnston hit back, saying that university
student numbers are necessarily huge. In
her estimation, they comprise almost half
the Australian population.
“In the next 10–15 years, 40 per cent of
current jobs will no longer exist,” she said.
“For every 1000 graduates, 141 jobs are
created. There’s a spillover effect.”
CUTTING REMARKS
The panellists then turned to the fees
themselves: the HELP threshold cuts
and the degree price hikes. In defending
these mea sures, which he initially
proposed to the government in a report,
Norton contended that, if the status quo
remained, a large proportion of student
loans wouldn’t be repaid, as many part-
time and vocational workers would never
reach the $55,000 annual threshold. This,
in his view, would cause “major financial
problems”.
Johnston immediately objected. She
claimed students are already in a state of
financial “crisis” due to escalating housing
prices, stagnant wage growth and
penalty rate cuts, and that these changes
would worsen it.
Davis, in agreeing with Johnston,
carried the university torch. “Why are
we increasing the financial burden on
students at all?” he asked. “It’s not like
universities aren’t doing their own part for
the economy.”
SES SOS?
What of the impact of fee increases on
low-SES students?
Norton offered that “history suggests”
this would be minimal. He said that,
controlling for ATAR scores, the rates
of students entering university are very
similar across socioeconomic strata.
Johnston retorted with a very personal
anecdote: in her regional high school
in coastal NSW, which had a high
proportion of low-SES students, children
in Years 7 and 8 were turned off the
prospect of attending university due to its
perceived cost. ■
7