Swapping billionaire wealth for more brains

Why were schools not encouraged to take their students on excursions into universities – visiting the grounds, walking through the buildings, sighting notice boards with information about student activities, going into lecture theatres and classrooms, sitting in on lectures. In this way, students who knew nothing of universities or who saw universities as outside their realm, could and would have gained knowledge of just what universities are and what they offer. Parents could have been invited to accompany school students or might have been encouraged to visit in parent groups, or simply to visit as entitled, simply by being Australian, to enter the premises. To those unaccustomed to the idea of university, university grounds are intimidating: 'not for you' screams out of the buildings, the spaces and places constituting every university.

The 'no fees' policy did make a difference. Many were those returning to study as mature-age students. This, because the Whitlam Government made it possible. Many did come from middle-class backgrounds. Yet during the fee-paying period which preceded Whitlam's initiative, some (as noted) had brothers whose entry to university had been prioritised. If the choice had been really open to them, young women who went off to teachers college would have opted for university, just as if the notion that girls might study law, medicine, architecture, engineering had been universally recognised, pre-'no fees' they would have sought a Commonwealth Scholarship and, on the basis of their grades, may well have gained one.

The reason given now for HECS is that the country cannot afford 'no fees'. Yet can we really afford fees, when fees discourage those whom Whitlam wanted to include in the university demographic?

Perhaps the federal government – and the Australian Parliament – might take note of the remarks of Gina Rinehart as to 'millionaires and billionaires' 'doing the most for social good'. The mining and resources tax is certainly one way that at least some millionaires and billionaires can contribute. This would enable Ms Rinehart to fulfill her pledge as to contributing to social good through enabling those who want to 'work hard' at university but do not have the chance because HECS stands in their way – to do so. Rather than lowering the minimum wage and cutting taxes 'to stimulate employment' as Rinehart argues, why not do away with HECS through diverting some of the resource and mining tax revenue to that cause?

And rather than putting prisoners to work in millionaire and billionaire's businesses, or on the projects of would be millionaires and billionaires as Rinehart advocates or at least applauds – why not provide rehabilitation through education for those who can make it through university, who can then repay society through their own income tax payments, rather than facing a HECS bill?

Rinehart's view appears to be that the working-class is without wit or ambition, brains or educational-capacity, yet she ignores the barriers standing in the way of those who are not financially advantaged or asset rich. In particular, she overlooks the huge advantage from which she profited: a father whose exploits in mining and associated activities resulted in his dying a billionaire – so that she, too, could lay claim to mass-monies and accumulated assets. It seems right, therefore, that those whom she denigrates ought share in some of that wealth – for 'the workers' mostly work, hard, for their money without the advantage of parents-who-profit.

Although Rinehart and her ilk object to the mining/resource tax, it applies only to 'super profits' of those coal and iron ore enterprises amassing profits over $75m. A 30 per cent levy, it is estimated as raising $10.6 billion from commencement (1 July 2012) to 30 June 2015. The government has planned uses for the sums gained, including tax breaks for small businesses and a cut to company tax of one per cent – small businesses again gaining, the cut first applying to them. Superannuation is boosted, with the compulsory contribution increasing from 8 to 12 per cent over the period 2012/2014 to 2019/2020. The remainder is to be invested in infrastructure, including roads and bridges, with mining regions, in particular, gaining a share.

With such a large amount in the offing, however, there is no reason for not reassessing the latter part of the equation. Infrastructure is vital. At the same time, educational attainments add to the wealth of the country, and extending higher educational possibilities and opportunities to those who might never have so profited is one way of ensuring the country gains in wealth terms. 'Infrastructure' should be seen as including not only roads, bridges and other physical construction, but the educational attainments of all Australians, and – apart from any other benefits, the benefits this brings to research and development, income tax contribution, and other expansions of industry, business and intellectual endeavour.

As well, there is a question whether the one per cent reduction in company tax will be extended to large businesses, with the Greens and others demurring. This leaves open the possibility that a sum not originally calculated in that remaining to be expended will be available for higher education – further enabling HECS to be abolished.

In 2003, HECS was estimated on Australian Taxation Office figures as providing more than $1000 million, approximately 20 per cent of funding for Commonwealth higher education institutions and their programmes. To deduct this sum annually from the $10.6 billion gained over three years through the mining/resource tax still leaves sufficient to cover the superannuation boost, tax cuts to small business and a substantial contribution to infrastructure.

Even if one takes the HECS estimate provided by its architect, Dr Bruce Chapman, as $1.2bn annually, the cost of collecting it comes in at $60m. This might better be spent by the ATO on collecting tax from individuals and companies managing to evade paying what they ought. After all, this category includes those who, if paying income tax and company tax at the levels they should, would contribute far more to Australia's coffers than the bulk of HECS contributions.

Certainly, a university education is not the only way to add to Australia's intellectual capacity, innovation and skills-base. TAFE and trade courses – including apprenticeships – must be reinstated at full-levels to ensure that this sector of Australia's training and education provides real opportunities for all wishing so to extend themselves. Indeed, many trades generate high incomes – many far higher than a large proportion of the university educated can ever hope to achieve.