Death taxes kill lifelong learning

A new report by the Centre for Independent Studies raises the possibility of a FEE- Help restructure. Options canvassed include linking lending to capacity to repay, and combining HECS-Help and FEE-Help into one loan system with increased differential caps. The report proposes extending the 20% surcharge on FEE-Help loans to apply to postgraduate courses, and collecting FEE-Help debts from Australians living overseas and from the estates of deceased FEE-Help debtors.

When full fee postgraduate courses were deregulated and again when full fee undergraduate courses were introduced, concerns were raised about the potential for massive increases in fees. These concerns have been borne out many times over, and an increase in the FEE-Help loan limit will only start another round of fee hikes, blowing out the cost of education beyond the reach of most postgraduate students.

Most appallingly, the CIS report suggests that government loans could be denied to those who are from groups deemed unlikely to pay. Combined with a reference to the "effects of personality factors on earnings" this should set off alarm bells across the sector and beyond.

What has become of the commitment to universal lifelong learning, to equitable access to education, to retraining and updating of skills? An educated population is a national asset no matter at what age that education is acquired.

The current fee and loan structure ignores the fact that university graduates already pay for their education many times over through the taxation system. A revision of the funding for university education is certainly needed, but we reject the AVCC solution of removing the FEE-Help cap as a sell out on access and equity for generations to come.

The appropriate solution is to extend the number, value and range of commonwealth supported places including postgraduate places, thus limiting full fees and reducing student debt.

Minister Bishop has stated that the current fee cap will not be increased, but will the Minister guarantee that the other repugnant elements of the CIS paper will similarly be rejected?