K E House
Occupation: Student
Address: withheld

A)	the principles of the government’s higher education package
*Higher education is under-funded.

With this I couldn’t agree more. The greatest dilemma that this underfunding creates is the loss of competition in the teaching market. Teaching is so underpaid, and the teachers so overworked that... surprise surprise.... no one wants to be a teacher. As it stands, there is no competitive incentive to bind the teachers to doing a decent job, because, there is no-one better vying for their job. My own university experience gives evidence to this: on more than one occasion class has been cancelled because the teacher failed to attend; and I even had one unit discontinue mid-term because the Unit coordinator ‘suffered a nervous breakdown’ and resigned. I remember soon after I started uni how disappointed I was in the quality of teaching. While in high school, I looked forward to uni being something like Dead Poet’s Society. It couldn’t have been further from the truth! None of the teachers wanted to be there.

Of course, out of the rubble there will sometimes appear a gem: Throughout my degree, I was lucky enough to have one or two really devoted, inspiring lecturers. Not surprisingly, I learnt the most and got the highest marks in these classes.

 The Higher education system- and particularly the teachers therein - does need more funding. But this should not come from the student. Rather, it should come from the tax payer -  and more specifically, the corporate tax-payer - because all of society will benefit from a comprehensive higher education system. In this submission, I hope to demonstrate my reasoning here.  What’s more, the tax payer will be willing to fork-out a little extra tax for a decent higher education system, because the consequences of there being a restricted access/science based system will be far worse for all Australians in the long term. 

1)  “It is the individual who will benefit from their higher education: so let him/her foot the bill.”

Brendon Nelson perceives that higher education -  hereon to refer to TAFE studies and University-level studies -  is a ‘private good’: that meaning, the individual will be the one to benefit from tertiary studies so they should pay for that benefit. It is a new development in the Australian ideology. It poses a stark deviation from Whitlam’s value of  higher education as a ‘public good’, on which his own system of Higher Education was modelled and which provided relatively cheap and accessible tertiary education to most Australians. 

Higher Education is a Public Good!

Nelson’s ‘private good’ doctrine reflects a government that is preoccupied with achieving short term gain. The long term pain that will come from such short-sightedness is clear to myself, many of my peers and many members of the wider community; yet the long-term side effects have clearly been overlooked by the current government. New Zealand is one example of a country with deregulated higher education and which also is not performing economic miracles; and in the United States, the effects of deregulated higher education are starting to show, as recent statistics indicate literacy rates and job security rates are declining. Of course, the US economy hasn’t been in the best shape lately, either. 

The correlations between deregulated higher education and lowly quality of life and economic performance are more than coincidental. A smart population means a rich population. Rupert Murdoch said it himself: “we have got to make Australians smarter!”.  Take the economic rise of Japan, for example. Of course, the country sported a 90% graduation rate: such technological and economic advances would not have been possible without accessible and compulsory higher education.

Of course higher education is a public good: it is folly to think otherwise. All that is required to realise this is a little bit of forward thinking: say, ten years down the track. 

i) Crime
To begin with, a society with a comprehensive higher education system would have a reduced crime rate, particularly in Australia  where the vast majority of crime is committed by the uneducated and under-privileged. 

ii) Economy
Then there are the economic benefits that will come from having a forward-thinking nation: innovation and breakthroughs performed by Australian organisations will strengthen our dollar, bringing about cheaper foreign goods like cars, computers and shares. 

Some argue that higher education for all is not feasible because there are menial tasks in our society that need to be done and ‘we cannot have people with PhD’s collecting garbage for the rest of us”. This argument itself is a load of garbage. First of all, not everyone is going to run off and get PhD’s because not everyone is cut out to do that, nor want to do that: the idea is to allow higher education be an option for everyone, thus helping every individual to reach his or her full potential. And it is only in a society in which each individuals’ potential is maximised that the wealth of that society is maximised. Secondly, those sorts of tasks could be taken by students, immigrants and refugees... lets please not exaggerate that there will be no-one to do these jobs!  

As for the availability of professional jobs - these, surely, will increase, for two reasons. First, many educated Australians are inclined to leave the country to work overseas, leaving a vacuum of jobs available here. Second, the all-round advancement that will come from available education for all will ensure that new jobs will be created all the time.  

Education and the impact of culture on tourism and foreign investment

i) Culture
Advancements in the arts will no doubt play an important part in improving the cultural appeal of this country.  Cultural appeal is so important and often overlooked. I come from Perth. Just compare Joondalup - a far newer developing area in the northern coastal suburbs - to Fremantle. Fremantle is one of the oldest parts of Perth and it’s inhabitants are typically the greying, reasonably well-off sector of middle Australia, predominantly educated in the arts or humanities. Compare this to Joondalup: a heartless, almost cultureless dump that was quite deliberately designed for low-income families. 

ii) Urban Planning
What has happened to urban planning in this country? Why do all the new developments seem to be designed to attract low income-earning groups? The reason is that THE NEXT GENERATION OF BABY BOOMERS ARE NOT AS WELL OFF, NOR ARE THEY AS CONFIDENT ABOUT THEIR FUTURE SECURITY, AS THEIR PREDECESSORS. Young Australians are opting for cheap, suburban housing, predominantly because they know that their future careers are not likely to enable them to pay off anything dearer. As a result, Australia‘s urban character - it‘s cultural appeal - is, on the whole, becoming duller and, I hate to say it, boring. 

Australians with bright futures will cause a change in urban architecture and planning to meet the needs of a large, upwardly mobile class. And if appropriate investment into the arts subjects prevail, perhaps we can look forward to a national urban landscape more comparable to what we have in Freo?  The government needs to keep in mind the impact that urban architecture has on visitors to the country and foreign investors. A more appealing architectural arrangement will be great for tourism. Young travellers want to be swept away by something different. As for myself, I can’t wait to travel to Prague, Rome, Paris... all places with beautiful architecture. I cannot see that young people in the US, Europe and the UK would demand any less. 

* make education relevant to industry: funding with a view to meet certain ‘national’ priorities and income generation.

INVESTMENT IN THE ARTS - THE BENEFITS

The reinforcement of Australian culture, Foreign investment and the tourism industry.

One of the most important advantages of further investment into the arts is the strengthening of Australian culture. Throughout it’s existence, Australia’s identity has  developed through literature, performance, and visual arts. Culture, undeniably, forms the backbone of a strong economy. Sydney is the perfect example of this. The Opera House and the Harbour Bridge - both potent signs of culture and beauty - have stamped Sydney as the Cultural capital of Australia: and culture pulls investment and prosperity. Is it really a wonder that Sydney is not only the cultural hub, but also the economic hub, of Australia? Absolutely not: the world over, the same formula applies. Washington DC is the capital of the USA, but the big money lives in New York - the Cultural Capital. 

Education - particularly in the arts and social sciences - is a prerequisite to a cultured  society. Education inspires thought and discussion. But whereas a science education teaches mastery in methods already known to us, a humanities education teaches one to compare and critique all the methods used to date. It is for this reason that theorist Immanuel Kant identified the humanities as the innovative branch of education, ie; lead to new and better ways of doing things, while the sciences are concerned with mastering such methods. In order for society to progress at  reasonable rate, the two must occur in tandem. 

The nature of Brendon Nelson’s reforms promises to tip the balance of investmetn between humanities and sciences greatly toward favouring the sciences. The implementation of such a proposal will eventually result in a tech-industry that is not innovative, but rather one that keeps up with the trends set by other countries that are innovative.  

 It is such a shame to see that the output of great Australian performance art is starting to lose its edge: or it shall do, eventually, given the mergers and rationalisations that have happened in the performance industry over the last five years (eg; Opera Australia). have started to lose their potency.  I love Australia, it has been my home all my life and I intend to one day raise a family of my own here. But it is so lacking in culture! I long to travel to those places I mentioned above - Paris, Rome, Prague - because the streets seem to be brought to life with art and performance. This effects the very spirit of the people who live there, especially the tourists, who often seem enthusiastic and eager to experience more. Funnily enough, these three aforementioned cities are the also big-time economic hubs of their respective states.    

B)	The effect of these proposals on sustainability, quality, equity and diversity in teaching and research at universities, with particular reference to:
•	the financial impact on students, including merit selection, income support and international comparisons.
•	the financial impact on universities, including the impact of the commonwealth grants scheme, the differential impact of fee deregulation, the expansion of full fee-paying places and comparable international levels of government investment, and
•	the provision of fully funded university places including provision for labour market needs, skill shortages and regional equity and the impact of the ‘learning entitlement.

THE BENEFITS OF A UNIVERSITY SYSTEM THAT USES MERIT AS THE ONLY CRITERIA FOR SELECTION.

The amazing benefits of a purely merit-based selection process are numerous and large. What’s more, they so surpass the benefits of a fee-based selection process that every section of society - the rich, the poor, the ‘mums and dads’ in the middle - should, if properly informed, opt for the former over the latter. There are four main reasons for this that I’d like to discuss.

First, the cash flow that a merit-based system will generate for the Australian economy could potentially double that which a fee-based system will bring. This is because a merit based system can turn the poor into rich. Let me explain with an example. 

Kid A and Kid B are school leavers. Kid A comes from a struggling family, and is desperate to break the cycle of poverty by going to uni and getting a business degree. Kid B comes from a wealthy family, who is willing to pay for her higher education. She wants to do business, too. Both apply for the same course. Their marks are pretty similar, though Kid A scores 5% higher than Kid B. Their applications are on the admissions cut-off line for their course of choice: and the university can accept only one of them. 

Under Mr. Nelson’s Fee paying system, Kid B is chosen over Kid A because Kid B’s parents offer to pay. Kid B is happy, goes through uni, ends up getting a hot-shot job in a big company. After 7  years, Kid B contributes $250,000 p/a to Australia‘s GDP, on her own. Kid A, on the other hand, goes back to her low paying service job in the outer suburbs. Still ambitious, she works her way into the public sector... but without any other skills and without the kitty to back her up, her battle is long and slow.  Her final contribution to Australia’s GDP after 7 years is $50,000, though for most of  the time before that, she had to rely on Centrelink payments in order to get by. 

Under a merit system, Kid A gets into uni and Kid B - regardless of the size of the cheque her family offers the university - loses out. Kid A goes on to meet people she’d never have met and to learn skills she’d never had learnt had she not made it into uni. Kid A is happy, goes through uni, ends up getting a hot-shot job in a big company and after 7 years she alone is contributing $250,000 to Australia’s GDP p/a. Kid B, on the other hand, is at first angry that she didn’t make it into uni. But not to worry: her family lets her work in their profitable business and she, like Kid B, ends up contributing $250,000 to Australia’s GDP after 7 years. 

So to cut a long story short: a merit system is better for all Australians in the short and long term because it can potentially turn the poor to rich. Those who are already rich do not need a higher education to continue the generation of wealth: they are equally advantaged by who they know and can learn various money-making skills from their immediate family. I can’t see why the Howard government wouldn’t want lots of Australians generating a lot of money, instead of just a privileged few. 

What’s more, merit-based admission will lessen the numbers receiving centrelink payments. 

E)	Alternative policy and funding options for the higher education and public research sectors.

In the long term, the cost to the tax payer of funding a Higher education scheme will be offset by a reduction in the amount they must pay for 
•	the social security system (because the white trash syndrom will begin to subside)\
•	the justice system (there should be a reduction in crime since the vast majority is committed by the underprivelaged and undereducated); and 
•	the health system.  (equitable and accesssible higher education system should see a long-term reduction in the incidence of youth drug abuse and youth suicide). 
•	On top of this, the innovation and breakthroughs that higher education will provide will boost the relative value of the Australian Dollar (in ways that I discussed earlier). This should further benefit Australians, for the obvious reasons: 

Higher education cannot be given the sole purpose of training people to meet the economic and corporate interests of the day. This is quite ridiculous and futile: Indeed, such a model may as well be scrapped entirely and the job of training future staff be left to the corporations/ organisations that will be requiring them. The original intent for higher education - as envisaged by the classical liberals - was to ensure that the state would always be in a position to advance on all levels: social, political, economic and technological. Is it really sustainable, in this globalised world, to work at keeping up with the 'Jonses'? Such a tactic really will put us in danger of becoming a banana republic. Personally, I see far more advantage in becoming the trend-setters ourselves.