Bacon and baby boomers just maintain the myth

THE representation of Gough Whitlam as the Great Helmsman of higher education is a myth the baby boomers seem intent on carrying to their graves.

The claim that neither they nor their parents could have begged, bagged or borrowed the price of admission to university were it not for the largesse of the Whitlam Labor government is worn as a badge of honour.

Yesterday, journalism academic Wendy Bacon tweeted in the broken English of the twittersphere: “In Abbott Gvt’s Po-Mo world, they’ll decide what the facts are ... Min Pyne just told Big Lie @abc that Whitlam educ reforms only meant middle class students who went anyway could go to uni for free ... Many in my generation were 1st people in families to go to Uni cos of Whitlam ref. Before that few could go. Needed scholarship.”

Yet the facts, and the Whitlam and Hawke Labor governments, say otherwise. Whitlam’s private secretary Peter Wilenski wrote that the abolition of university fees “had no impact on the socioeconomic distribution of the origins of university students, and was in effect a direct handout to the better off”. Academics and administrators got larger salaries, wrote Wilenski, but “it was doubtful whether it should have had first call on government funds”.

Though Bacon and the baby boomers are loath to admit it, the pioneers of popular university education were Robert Menzies and his Liberal-Country Party successors who quadrupled university admissions between 1956 and 1972.

Tens of thousands of undergraduates were receiving commonwealth scholarships when Whitlam came to power, including, incidentally, former treasurer Wayne Swan. Scholarships were awarded competitively to the most able students regardless of circumstances, guaranteeing that those who entered academe were the academically able.

One consequence of the Whitlam free-for-all was to increase the failure rate. At the start of the 1970s, 34 per cent of students who enrolled would leave empty-handed; by the end of the decade, the rate had risen to 40 per cent.

As Whitlam’s education minister, Kim Beazley Sr, wrote in his memoirs: “Generally speaking, those who have a tertiary education in Australia tend to come from the higher income groups. Making tertiary education free therefore tends to shift resources upwards in the community.”

In so far as Whitlam broke down barriers to enter university, it occurred in schools, where Labor’s heavy investment, and the equal funding of Catholic schools, raised retention rates to Year 12.

Like so many of Whitlam’s grand gestures, free universities placed an impossible demand on public spending. The federal government’s recurrent spending on universities increased from $80 million in 1972-73 to $378m in 1974-75, a fourfold increase after adjusting for inflation.

The rapid growth in student numbers created overcrowding. It also discouraged self-reliance.

In 1958, Beazley Sr observed that since Australians spent £450m a year on gambling, £240m on ­liquor and £125m on tobacco, “It cannot be said that all around us is a grinding poverty that prevents large numbers of people from ­giving their children an opportunity.”

The ultimate repudiation of Whitlam’s policy came in 1988 when Bob Hawke’s Labor government reintroduced fees and offered ­income-contingent loans so students could repay their debt when their income permitted.

Labor education minister John Dawkins told the ALP national conference in 1988 that Whitlam’s abolition of fees had failed to democratise education. “We have seen very little change as a result of that move itself in the socio-economic composition of the student population.”

Every attempt since to remove the socio-economic bias towards the middle class in higher education has failed. Yet income-contingent loans have enabled millions to attend university without bankrupting the state.

Nick Cater is executive director of the Menzies Research Centre.