Now that the Education Fightback campaign appears to be over, or at least with nothing actively going on in it that I can see, our adversaries are coming out of the woodwork to challenge the various allegations that were made in the course of that campaign about the Government's attitude to education. Bill Renwick, Director-General of Education, was widely reported recently, saying that the amount voted to Education in the last Budget represented a 10.8°/o increase from last year, and that people who argued that the Government was cutting back on educational expenditure were talking through a hole in their hat.

It is certainly true that, if we ignore the supplementary grant in October last year, the increase was l0.8%. However as this is less than the rate of inflation during that period, it is hard to really claim that Government is maintaining its commitment to education. This "commitment" will no doubt be touted around even more when the supplementary estimates are announced later in the year, which are expected to put another $150 million into education. There is however one particularly important point to remember: the supplementary grants will be used almost entirely for increases in salaries, which presently constitute 68% of Vote Education. So the supplementary allowances should not be seen as real increases in expenditure (in the sense of allowing more thing to be done) but rather as necessry increases in expenditure to retain existing levels of activity.

But it is hard to believe that Renwick's statements have fooled anyone. The attitude of Government is quite clearly revealed by the statements of our hapless Minister of Education. His suggestions of "on-the-job" training for secondary school teachers, the new TSG, a refusal to improve conditions of Kindergarten teachers, closures of teachers' training colleges all bear witness to a Government that is either stupid or is thinking of ways of trimming expenditure. Indeed, Merv's very appointment of Minister of Education, a senior portfolio, given to a junior minister, suggests that Muldoon has no real intention of giving education a strong voice in cabinet.

Differential fees Across the Tasman

For once it would seem that Muldoon has beaten the prolific letter-writer across the Tasman to the draw, and imposed a differential fee of $1500 on all overseas students fully four months before the Fraser Government got around to doing so. But even if he's not too quick, Fraser is at least sure, and last week he announced the imposition of a differential fee on overseas students ranging from $1,500 to $2,600. As in New Zealand, overseas students are being asked to pay the price for economic mismanagement.

The two announcements this year are the closing of the last two doors available for students from South East Asia to undertake tertiary study at a cost which some poor families have at least some hope of meeting. As Salient has noted before, for the vast majority of overseas students presently in both these countries, the $1,500 fee is no more attainable than the more expensive fees charged in such countries as England and USA. Unless this policy is opposed in both countries, there may well be hardly any overseas students in Australasia within three or four years. Certainly all that there will be will come from wealthy backgrounds. As far as elitism in aid goes, these policies just about take the cake. Take only the wealthy from the country, and then train them so that they can retain their wealth. Is this to be the basis of New Zealand's aid to the countries of South East Asia and the South Pacific?

The imposition of the fee ties in with the Government's frantic attempts to cut expenditure as far as possible without losing any votes. This is becoming more and more apparent every time Merv is unwise enough to open his mouth. On the question of the discriminatory fee he has, in rapid succession, denied that places for overseas students are a form of aid, claimed that overseas students can afford to pay the fee (admitting however that no research on that question has actually been done because Government "did not have the time"), refused to consult with involved groups (because "we knew they would't agree with us") and failed to produce any evidence that supports his contention that overseas students cost New Zealand any significant amount of money.

He added even more confusion to the reasons behind the new policy answering a recent question in Parliament, when he said, "I am sure that (overseas students) are not displacing New Zealand students from courses, because, apart from a few sponsored students, they are not offered places for which there is restricted entry." So, we must ask, what is the reason for the new fee? The only answer that completely answers the questions is one of desperate cost cutting. And after this, people like Renwick expect the public of New Zealand to believe that the Governments is honouring its commitments to education and not instituting any cuts in this vital area!

Peter Beach.