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.