By Simon Butler
Late on Christmas eve, federal education minister David Kemp released a government report revealing that the Coalition government has cut funding to higher education by $600 million over the past four years.
Direct yearly government grants to universities have fallen from $4.8 billion in 1996 to $4.2 billion in 2000. Projections for the next three years reveal that government funding will not even keep pace with inflation.
The report illustrates the federal government's grand agenda for higher education: further cuts in government funding, more student fees and decreasing staff wages and working conditions.
Kemp stated triumphantly that the total revenue for higher education would rise to $9 billion in 2000, up from $7.95 billion in 1995. This has come almost completely from increased Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS) payments and the full fees paid by some students. Student fees and charges have increased by close to $1 billion since 1996.
There is general agreement that the education system is facing a severe funding crisis. This is the result of government cutbacks, but is being used to justify the privatisation of higher education.
The so-called solution put forward by Kemp is to shift the bulk of education funding onto students, making the individual "users" pay for what is a social resource and of great benefit to business.
This drive is being carried out under the rhetoric of increasing "flexibility" and "student choice". In reality, there is a drive to increase competition and differentiation within the system — squeezing more out of those who can pay, and giving a less expensive, second-class education to the rest. The general message is "you pay for what you get".
The vice-chancellor of the University of Sydney, Professor Gavin Brown, has been quite candid in the media about his enthusiasm for the establishment of a two-tiered university system with an elite group of institutions free to charge full fees from many more students.
Students would be presented with the choice of attending the prestigious private universities or the inferior government-funded universities with lower fees. Rich and privileged students would be able to receive a quality education while the majority would languish in poorly funded institutions, or would be barred from attending at all.
Increased student "choice" is also the rhetoric Kemp has used to disguise other attacks, like the "voluntary student unionism" legislation and the proposals contained in a leaked cabinet briefing paper in October. The public outcry against this document, which outlined plans to allow universities to charge higher fees and proposed the replacement of HECS with a student loans scheme repayable at market interest rates, demonstrates that there is still a wide sentiment in support of public education.
In the December 28 Sydney Morning Herald Brown admitted that "there is a strong belief in many quarters that we should as a matter of equity offer an identical experience at every Australian university".
Kate Carr, Resistance activist and education officer at the University of Sydney, told Green Left Weekly: "It is important that we build on the sentiment to defend public funding of tertiary education. Students face an ideological battle to convince more people that free education is possible, that society should prioritise people's needs rather than running everything in the interests of business profits."
Carr explained that students are suffering from the funding crisis through overcrowded classes, restrictions on computer access and a declining standard of libraries. More fees and less government financial assistance are also biting.
She said, "This year it will be essential for students to unite in campaigns for improvements on their own campuses, but we also have to remember what is causing the whole crisis and demand that the government restore funding to higher education."