MINORITY REPORT
A Report by Opposition Members of the Committee
Scope of the Minority Report
1.1 This minority report refers only to the contentious elements of the
bill related to voluntary student unionism.
The conduct of the inquiry
1.2 Whatever the outcome of this legislation it can be claimed that Parliament
has failed to give it the consideration that its importance warrants.
The debate in the House of Representatives was severely curtailed and
guillotined by the government with 21 members of Parliament deprived of
their right to participate in the debate. The limited time allocated for
debate of this legislation in the House of Representatives was disproportionate
to the impact it will have on universities throughout the country. Nor
does it reflect the obvious unease that elements of the Coalition have
towards this bill. While dissident members of the Coalition have made
their views known to the press, these views have not been aired through
the parliamentary process.
1.3 It should also be admitted that this Committee's scrutiny of the
bill has been hasty and superficial. No bill previously dealt with by
this Committee has aroused so much controversy, or such opposition. In
the few short weeks leading to the public hearing the Committee received
over 400 submissions and more than 1800 form letters. The larger universities
sent multiple submissions, representing the range of functions within
these institutions which stand to be effected by this legislation. Yet,
despite calls from Opposition senators for hearings to take place on a
number of days and in a number of regions, the Committee devoted only
one day for a public hearing. The proceedings of that single public hearing
generated more heat than light. The hearing itself attracted adverse press
comment arising from attempts to discredit witnesses. [1]
The Senate has an opportunity to make amends when debate on the bill gets
underway.
Ideological overkill
1.4 The Higher Education Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 can with just
consideration be described as an attempt to legislate `political correctness'
into the affairs of university student government. This is a term which
ideologues of the variety which include the Minister for Education, Training
and Youth Affairs are accustomed to applying to those of a different political
persuasion, but it has never been more aptly applied.
1.5 The stated intentions of the government in introducing this legislation
are to give students the right to choose whether or not they wish to belong
to a student association, and to give them more choice in the goods and
services they purchase at university. It may be presumed that one of the
Government's hopes for voluntary student unionism will be the weakening
of student activism by denuding the activists of campaign funds and the
presumption of mass support for student causes. As well as this, the legislation
will apply, or at least extend, the principle of `user pays' and `individual
freedom' where before students benefited from cross-subsidised student
services, in keeping not only with principles of fairness and equity,
but in recognition of the idea of a university as a `community of scholars'.
1.6 Government senators seemed determined to ignore evidence that voluntary
student associations already exists. This point is made in the submission
from the Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee which advises that a recent
check of its membership confirmed that all member universities provide
students with a choice of whether or not to belong to any of their student
associations. Understandably, there is some diversity in the methods in
which universities provide for this choice. [2]
1.7 The Committee was informed that voluntary student unionism had been
the objective of the Australian Liberal Students Federation for some twenty
years. [3] The policy appears to find its strongest
support in a generation of Coalition members and supporters whose university
experiences covered the period from the late 1960's through to the 1980's.
This may be cited as an instance of generational political action at work;
perhaps a settling of old scores, with the `collateral damage' yet to
be felt by generations for whom the obsessions of the `seventies are a
boring footnote to history.
Student democracy
1.8 Those who have advocated voluntary student unionism over the years
have failed to recognise the success with which students have managed
the democratic process. Those processes are little different from those
used in other spheres, and the degree of responsibility expected of student
leadership is high. If students are unhappy with decisions made by their
elected representatives, they have the option of voting them out. This
point was made more than a quarter of a century ago by the former Minister
for Education, Malcolm Fraser MP. In answer to a question asked in the
Senate about the use of SRC funds to bail students arrested in anti-Vietnam
war demonstrations, and suggesting government intervention to stop this,
Mr Fraser replied:
I have noted the report that, a large majority of students at the University
of Sydney is opposed to the use of Student Council funds for purposes
such as that outlined by the honourable senator. It needs to be kept
in mind that the Student Representative Councils are composed of representatives
elected by the students themselves. If the majority of students is not
satisfied with the actions and decisions of their representatives then
the students themselves have the right to remedy the situation through
the normal democratic processes available to them. [4]
1.9 This historical reference is made simply to remind the Senate that
there was a time when Coalition ministers took their conservatism seriously
and displayed some confidence in democratic processes. This process was
vindicated over a decade later, as described. Since then, the Australian
Liberal Students Federation has been conspicuously unsuccessful in convincing
the student body to take up the cause of voluntary student unionism and
has resorted, successfully, to having it implemented by heavy handed government
action in Western Australia, and is attempting to do the same for all
universities through this legislation.
1.10 In embarking upon this campaign, the Liberal Students Federation
and their apparently few supporters are repudiating the legacy of past
generations of students, while deriving benefit from it, and ensuring
that the future legacy will be seriously diminished. This point was made
earlier this year in an article by the Vice-Chancellor of the University
of New South Wales, Professor John Niland, who currently fills the Chair
of the Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee:
My biggest concern…is the Government's legislation really represents
the beginning of an assault on our sense of the inter-generational responsibility
for the quality and diversity of campus life. To use the Prime Minister's
recent apt description, there is an issue of mutual obligation…
For all universities, an estimated $300 million has been spent on buildings
for student services in the past 10 years. Are we to so lightly relieve
future generations from their responsibilities toward institution building?
Experience tells us that given the opportunity to avoid a voluntary
charge, the opportunity will be accepted en masse. We can expect the
Government's legislation, if passed, to leave a legacy of decline in
the traditions of university life. [5]
1.11 Few senators who have had the experience of a university education
would deny its importance in determining, at least in some measure, the
future course of their lives. For some, it has been absolutely crucial.
It escapes the understanding of Opposition members of this Committee that
the government should deliberately set out to both further impoverish
universities and strike such blows at their traditions as are represented
in this legislation.
1.12 Opposition members of the Committee are in total agreement with
some profound observations made recently by the newly installed Chancellor
of the University of Technology, Sydney, Sir Gerard Brennan. The former
Chief Justice referred to the Higher Education Legislation Amendment Bill
as unprecedented in its intent to impose government control over university
policy. Sir Gerard spoke about the two aspects of university life that
would be affected by the bill. The first was to do with student services,
where he reminded the government that there was no mothers' committee
to run the tuck shop, and no P&F to buy the cricket bats and netballs,
and no police to request the ID of students who wanted to run on the oval.
If these services could not be provided by students they would have to
be provided by universities already hard-pressed for funds.
1.13 More seriously, in the chancellor's view, was the bill's implicit
attack on the universities as communities where students, through their
clubs and societies engaged in discourse and debate:
The bill now demands, under threat of discontinued funding, that governing
bodies change their policy. The Government proposes to introduce a condition
on funding that will emasculate the liberality of university education
and quell the dissent that has been so often and so usefully a burr
under the saddle of authority.
That raises grave issues for the governing bodies. They will have to
decide whether to submit to the Government's dictation of their policy
in order to retain the funding essential to the maintenance of a bare
teaching facility. [6]
1.14 Opposition members of the Committee regret that the bipartisan policy
with regard to Commonwealth responsibility for higher education, established
under Prime Ministers Chifley and Menzies, has been seriously threatened
by this legislation. Whilst recognising the importance of national responsibility
for university funding, opposition Senator's believe that the VSU legislation
substantially undermines an Australian tradition of university autonomy
in the day to day running of their institutions.
Practical implications
1.15 The Opposition members of the Committee have searched in vain through
the sparse statements of policy on this bill, for even the smallest hint
of appreciation of the practical implications that arise from its implementation.
There is no indication of consultations between the government and university
administrators. No guidelines that the Committee is aware of have emerged
from the Higher Education Division of DETYA. The Government has put universities
in an almost impossible position. It has used its powers to impose policies
on universities which have not been negotiable, arguing that as autonomous
and independent bodies the universities are free to implement these policies
in the best way they can. A very large number of submissions to the Committee
detail the practical difficulties which the Minister refuses to address,
as they are presumably beyond his sphere of responsibility. The most important
of these are set out below.
Student services
1.16 Student organisations provide a broad range of services to the university
community. A list of services compiled by the Australasian Campus Union
Managers Association which are provided by universities around the country
are listed in Appendix 3 to this report. The likely impact of the government's
legislation on these services is almost certainly not yet grasped by a
majority of students, or their parents, or members of the wider community.
In time they will grasp the stark facts.
1.17 Proponents of voluntary student unionism demonstrate no understanding
of how dependent many students are on the services provided by unions
which are now threatened by this legislation. The frequently made claim
that student unions provide services analogous to local government services
is generally accepted. [7] Many of these services
are heavily subsidised, and like welfare services everywhere, would be
impossible to maintain unless everyone pays for them. Student service
fees are still compulsory under Victorian legislation. The current arrangements
recognise that the fair and equitable distribution of services to suit
varying needs of students require a set compulsory fee. This is the basis
of all taxation and welfare practice.
1.18 A great number of submissions sent to the Committee by individual
university unions made this point. To take one aspect of service alone,
it is interesting to note how unions are forced to provide services which
take account of the relative isolation of campuses. For instance, the
University of Western Sydney Macarthur campus provides a free shuttle
bus service between the campus and Campbelltown railway station at a cost
of $120,000 per year. The Hawkesbury campus of UWS offers the same facility
to a station on the western line. [8] The Tasmania
University Union fears the impact of the VSU bill will be felt most strongly
on the cultural life of the university which the TUU currently supports.
If this is reduced then `we cannot expect bright young Tasmanians not
to be drawn to the cultural attractions offered in the big mainland cities
when very few are offered in their home state.' [9]
The regional aquatic centre at Lismore will not proceed if VSU proceeds.
The Southern Cross University Union has a one third stake in the project,
the other partners being the university and the City of Lismore. [10]
This is one of many instances known to the Committee where the impact
of VSU will extend into the civic life of regional communities.
1.19 The Minister claims that there is student demand for the delivery
of services in a strongly market oriented way and that change would reduce
costs for students. There is no evidence of any appreciable dissatisfaction
from students in the way services are currently provided. There is evidence
to the contrary in the survey conducted by the Education Working Group
National Youth Round Table. Only 4 per cent of respondents to the survey
question on quality of service rated these as poor. [11]
Over 80 per cent rated services satisfactory or better. Importantly the
survey showed that only 29% of students supported voluntary student unionism.
1.20 Under the scheme proposed by the Minister, there would be far-reaching
consequences for less well-off students because the provision of services
to them would not be cost efficient. Without cross-subsidies services
like childcare and legal services would cease in most universities. The
market is not always the most efficient allocator of resources. Student
government, not unlike government at any level, needs to apply `democratic
judgement to find a balance between market forces and what is seen as
fair and reasonable equity measures that the invisible hand of the market
is blind to.' [12]
1.21 As the Flinders University Students Association submission continued:
`A university union or guild run solely for profit (as it would under
VSU) would not deliver `better services' to students. It will simply deliver
far fewer services and only at times and locations when it is profitable
to do so.' [13] There is too little space in
this report to detail the efforts made by university student union managements
in recent times to continually improve the quality and efficiency of services
to students. The Australasian Campus Union Managers Association is in
the process of developing world `best practice' in student services, an
international benchmark which has implications for the competitiveness
of Australian universities in a way which the Government appears to have
no knowledge of. [14]
1.22 The alleged antipathy for welfare services, which is implicit in
the arguments of those supporting voluntary student unionism, finds little
support in submissions made to the Committee. The limitations of `user
pays' operations was put in a submission from the Tasmanian Chamber of
Commerce and Industry:
The TCCI strongly supports the notion of user choice and user pays
to the extent that it can be practically applied. We also accept that
there are many circumstances whereby a compulsory levy or tax is the
only practical means of achieving a socially desirable outcome.
The issue of how student services are provided on and off campus is
not a core concern for the TCCI. It does seem however, that the Commonwealth
Government is attempting to impose a set of operating rules on University
Unions which it is not prepared to impose on its own operations and
that of other levels of Government. [15]
1.23 Opposition members of the Committee believe that students may face
a difficult choice in weighing up the costs of union membership, and may
overlook the potentially high cost of remaining outside the union, assuming
that a full range of services is available. Students can encounter problems
at university they do not anticipate: sexual harassment, accusations of
plagiarism, a death in the family necessitating an exam deferral, exploitation
by a landlord. It is for the reason that these things only happen to other
people that third party motor insurance is compulsory rather than voluntary.
[16] A submission from the Catholic Youth Services
of the Archdiocese of Adelaide expressed its concern that the likely inability
of university unions to provide counselling and related social welfare
services to students would have a serious impact on the workload of outside
welfare agencies. [17] The ramifications of
this legislation are wide.
1.24 The majority report of this Committee gives an impression that student
services are required less and less by students: that the modern undergraduate
rushes from train to lecture, to the library and back to a lecture before
rushing to the train. To proponents of voluntary student unionism the
interests of the modern undergraduate are purely academic and vocational.
There appears to be no recognition of the need for extra curricula activities
or support services.
1.25 James Cook University Union has already drawn up a list of services
it will charge non-union members for. [18]
A standard welfare consultation will cost non-members $60. A standard
academic consultation on HECS advice or an academic appeal will also cost
$60. Legal advice will cost $1 a minute and faxes and telephone calls
will cost considerably more for non-members. All other services above
will be free to members, and a number of other services, like tenancy
advice and emergency loans will be available only to members. Opposition
members of the Committee commend the James Cook initiative and regret
that there appears to be some hesitation by other student union and association
leaders to forcefully bring home to students the extent to which they
will lose the services that students have taken for granted for several
generations should this legislation pass the Senate. In Appendix 4 of
this report is a list of student services currently available at each
of the three campuses of the Charles Sturt University, with the likely
impact of VSU marked against each service.
Regulating access to services
1.26 In the almost certain event that a minority of students will elect
to join student unions in most universities, should this legislation be
passed, a vexed issue will arise as to how best to deal with `free-loaders'.
It will be a novel situation for a student body to find itself in: literally
the end of a `closed shop'. In most cases services will not be able to
be offered in such a way as to discriminate between members and non-members.
The cost of enforcing exclusion may exceed the revenue to be collected.
Yet, if non-members continue to use services of a welfare nature then
the cost of providing these services will rise. Student organisations
will be under pressure to take a firm line on this issue which may see
some animosity aroused within the student community.
1.27 Opposition members noted the highly contentious evidence given to
the Committee by the ACT Attorney General, Mr Gary Humphries, in relation
to free-loaders which has been relied upon, we note, in the majority report.
Photographic identity membership cards, which Mr Humphries advocates,
will not solve the problem of free-loaders given the likely relaxed attitude
to enforcement. The culture of universities may not be accommodating to
their use. In fact, the practical problem of restricting the access of
non-members of student organisations to buildings, recreational services
and services is likely to prove insoluble in most cases.
International Students
1.28 The Government shows scant concern for the impact of its legislation
on students from abroad and Australia's international education market.
The student market is highly susceptible to rumour. Having recently repaired
our international reputation following widespread accusations of racism
resulting from media coverage of One Nation policies, Australian universities
might have hoped for clear weather ahead. However, voluntary student unionism
is clearly emerging as a new and potentially damaging issue affecting
our reputation in the highly competitive education export industry. The
view of Opposition members of the Committee is aptly summed up in the
following submission extract:
Considered from the prevailing economic rationalist perspective, the
Government's proposed anti-student legislation makes little sense. Australian
universities are now competing in a global education market to attract
fee-paying international and domestic students to fill the gap created
by declining Federal funding for the sector. In this context, full fee-paying
students are unlikely to make significant financial investments in universities
which are unable to offer essential independent student-orientated services.
Without the insurance policy of the professional services offered by
student organisations many potential students, particularly postgraduate
and international students, will turn elsewhere in search of more supportive
environments in which to pursue their tertiary studies. [19]
1.29 The Committee heard evidence from a representative of the National
Liaison Committee for International Students, Mr Shanton Chang, a student
from Malaysia, a country with a large and influential alumni of Australian
university graduates. The Committee was advised that there was a strong
need for a social support base for international students. [20]
Fees for international students are rising, yet the Government appears
intent on reducing the level of support services. Opposition members of
the Committee shared the concern expressed that this was a situation likely
to breed resentment and suspicions of exploitation. It is a potentially
embarrassing international relations problem in the making, and Australian
universities will be the losers.
Staff losses and unemployment
1.30 The government argues that voluntary student unionism will result
in no significant job losses. The evidence provided to the Committee demonstrates
that this is far from the case. Universities are large employers. They
are labour intensive institutions, dealing as they do with human capital.
The implications for employment which are inherent in this legislation
are very serious. According to the Australasian Campus Union Managers
Association (ACUMA) surveys, more than 5,000 full-time staff are employed
in student services, and another 5,000 employed in a part-time capacity.
A high proportion of this latter group are students. The proposed legislation
threatens more than half of the full-time jobs over 3,000 according to
ACUMA as well as a further 2,000 part-time jobs. [21]
1.31 A number of submissions from individual universities put some flesh
on the bones of these global figures. For instance, the 2,500 full-time
students at the Wagga campus of Charles Sturt University are served by
a union currently employing 26 permanent staff and 182 casual staff. Based
on the experience of Western Australian universities and estimating that
10 per cent of students would pay the service fee at its current level
of $216 per year, revenue from fees would fall from just over $ 1 million
to $150,000. Only 2 of the 26 full-time employees would be retained under
these circumstances. [22]
Likely disbanding of student organisations
1.32 According to ACUMA many campus service organisations will face insolvency
the day the bill is passed. Even those organisations that do not have
outstanding debts will have insufficient funds to meet the high costs
of redundancy and downsizing. Such organisations will be required by law
to cease trading immediately. [23] Older universities
have the continuing expense of maintaining expensive infrastructure, but
are mostly debt free. Hardest hit will be the smaller regional university
unions and those institutions which are relatively new and with outstanding
loans for infrastructure. Such an institution is the Wagga campus of Charles
Sturt University-Riverina. As the submission from the Rivcoll Union states
in stark terms:
It has been estimated that should VSU be implemented, Rivcoll Union
would be liable for a payment of $350,000 in redundancies, long-service
leave and leave entitlements for its staff. Due to the nature of Rivcoll
Union being a cash-based organisation, a payment of $350,000 would make
the organisation insolvent. [24]
1.33 Even large established universities have debt servicing arrangements
which are dependent on student fees. Monash University Union, which has
spent an average of over $1 million each year for ten years on maintaining
its main Clayton facilities, currently has an outstanding capital debt
of $3.9 million which must be repaid from the Compulsory Amenities fee.
[25]
What is really happening in Western Australia?
1.34 According to Government sources, the experience of universities
under voluntary student unionism enacted under state legislation, is a
vindication of everything that this bill intends. The Minister informed
the House of Representatives that the sports union at the University of
Western Australia now had more money than it had ever had. [26]
This is a good example of very selective argument. The general situation
in which student guilds find themselves is best described as parlous.
According to information provided to the Committee by the Australian Vice-Chancellors'
Committee (AVCC), [27] student guild membership
has fallen dramatically, as the following figures indicate:
Curtin University of Technology 30 per cent
Edith Cowan University 6 per cent
Murdoch University 35 per cent
University of Western Australia 30 per cent
1.35 What the Minister has not revealed is the extent to which the universities
have had to step in to provide financial assistance to the guilds to ensure
the maintenance of a basic level of student services. In the case of some
services the university has taken over the role of direct administration.
The expense of this is borne by the universities, resulting in reduced
funding for core academic programs like teaching and research. The Acting
Vice-Chancellor of Edith Cowan University advised the Committee that in
1998 the university provided $100,000 to the Guild to support a limited
range of representational, social and cultural activities and the orientation
program. [28] While this put pressure on funding
for its academic program, the university saw no alternative to this expenditure
if the university was to remain competitive locally, nationally, and internationally.
1.36 One example of the catastrophic fall in guild incomes provided to
the Committee is that of Curtin University Guild which has seen income
drop from $3 million to $100,000. The registrar of the University of Western
Australia has been reported as saying that the Guild of that university
is in danger of falling into terminal decline, with static membership,
exhausted reserves and reducing services. He called this a heavy price
to pay for the Government's exaggerated fear of student radicalism. [29]
Services no longer provided by university guilds in Western Australia
include, personal advocacy for students appealing against university decisions;
childcare services; cheap meals and recreational facilities; sports services;
and student loans.
1.37 It is little wonder that university authorities are both angry and
puzzled by the intentions of the Government in this legislation. There
appears to be an almost anarchic impulse to the bill. Here is legislation
that will throw university finances – already at full-stretch –
into chaos. The AVCC submission asserts:
There is no question that the current legislation, if passed by the
Senate would replicate the Western Australian experience nationally
to the detriment of Australia's higher education system. A 75 per cent
reduction in student service fees paid nationally would see a loss of
some $94 million in funds earmarked for the provision of student services.
[30]
1.38 Opposition members of the Committee look at Western Australia and
see the damage that may lie ahead for higher education. The puzzle is
why the legislation has been allowed to proceed so far.
Legal and Constitutional issues
1.39 A number of submissions have raised questions about the constitutional
validity of legislation which, on the face of it, appears to blunder into
the legislative jurisdiction of state governments. While Opposition members
of the Committee claim no particular authority or insight into matters
of constitutional law, which are properly matters for the courts, there
does remain the obligation on the Senate (the House having failed in this
regard) to consider whether the legislation has been drafted with sufficient
regard for constitutional proprieties. That is, while the Senate does
not attempt any sort of legal judgement, it should ensure as far as possible
that the legislation is, prima facie, unlikely to be torn up in
the High Court. The Opposition members of the Committee believe, on balance,
that the Higher Education Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 fails this test.
1.40 The Committee has read the legal advice sought by the Australian
Vice-Chancellors' Committee from Minter Ellison, with particular reference
to the issue of parliament's incidental or inherent legislative powers
with respect to the use of executive power. The Commonwealth appears to
have taken the view over many years, regardless of the political complexion
of the government, that its powers will always override state powers,
but this has not always found favour with the High Court. It is at least
arguable that the attempt by the Commonwealth to legislate in such a way
as to regulate the affairs of a university, established under a state
act with powers to conduct its affairs autonomously, would be considered
by a majority of the High Court to be acting beyond its powers.
1.41 The Senate should be advised that the Committee heard evidence that
a High Court challenge would be anticipated should the bill be passed
by the Senate. It would not be the first time that the High Court has
had to step in to adjudicate contentious constitutional issues following
a failure of the Parliament to carefully consider the constitutional ramifications
of legislation. The Senate has an obligation to carefully consider the
constitutional basis of VSU legislation in far more depth than it would
appear that the Government has.
Conclusion
1.42 The Government has promoted this legislation as overdue empowering
of the student body as a whole: as a provision which will allow students
to both disassociate themselves from student political activity and issues
they feel uncomfortable with, or indifferent to. The Government fails
to recognise, as events over the past decade illustrate, that student
political movements have seen the same volatility as state and national
political trends. The Opposition takes the view, as have past Coalition
leading figures, that democratic processes bring the best results in the
end.
1.43 The Opposition is at odds with the Government on the more philosophical
issues about what constitutes good student representation and government;
a second issue of great concern to students and others is the more tangible
issue of student services. On this score, the Opposition sees no practical
justification for this bill. It has looked in vain for any argument from
the Government which attempts to do so. The practical effects on student
services appear not to have been properly considered, even though the
evidence is overwhelming that these services would suffer considerable
damage. The consequences of its passage would be chaotic and hugely expensive
for a sector which is still reeling from budget cuts over successive years.
One thing is very clear: universities could not afford to stand by and
see student services decline to a point where the entire university, including
its academic program, would suffer damage to its reputation. Funds would
be made available to student services, but at the expense of the academic
program.
1.44 The university sector will be greatly relieved should this legislation
fail to pass the Senate. So also should Coalition members with universities
in their electorates which will not then face the task of retrenching
staff and reassuring local creditors and suppliers whose interests appear
not to have been considered in the policy development of this bill. The
universities have been put to a great deal of anxiety in their contemplation
and contingency planning arising from the Higher Education Legislation
Amendment Bill 1999. It is up to the Senate to relieve the higher education
sector of this additional burden.
Recommendations
1.45 Opposition senators on the Committee recommend that the Senate
amend this bill to remove those sections giving effect to Voluntary Student
Unionism. Opposition senators also recommend that the bill be amended
to retain the discretion of the Federal Government to provide financial
assistance to student organisations affected by VSU legislation which
is enacted by State governments.
Kim Carr
Deputy Chair
Trish Crossin
Footnotes
[1] Alan Ramsey, `Unacceptable behaviour', Sydney
Morning Herald, 15 March 1999, p.45
[2] Submission No. 89, Australian Vice-Chancellors'
Committee, p.5.
[3] Hansard, Canberra, 7 May 1999, p.78
[4] Hansard (Senate), 10 December 1971,
p.2758
[5] John Niland, `Voluntary campus fees won't
tax minds', Sydney Morning Herald, 21 January 1999, p.15
[6] Sir Gerard Brennan, `Vitality under threat',
The Australian, 24 March 1999
[7] Submission No. 170, City of Greater Bendigo
[8] Submission No. 85, University of Western
Sydney
[9] Submission No. 126, Tasmania University
Union, p.5
[10] Submission No. 155. Southern Cross University
Union, p.4
[11] Submission No. 264, Education Working
Group, National Youth Round Table, p.24
[12] Submission No. 150, Students' Association
of Flinders University, p.21
[13] ibid. p.22
[14] Submission No. 159, Australasian Campus
Union Managers Association, p.4
[15] Submission No.56, Tasmanian Chamber of
Commerce and Industry
[16] Submission No.150, Students' Association
of Flinders University, p.20
[17] Submission No. 95, Catholic Youth Services,
Archdiocese of Adelaide
[18] Submission No.216, James Cook University
Union, Appendix 2
[19] Submission No. 73, Sydney University Postgraduate
Representative Association, p.11
[20] Hansard, Canberra, 7 May 1999,
p.75
[21] Submission No.159, Australasian Campus
Union Managers Association, p.7
[22] Submission No. 103, Rivcoll Union Inc
[23] Submission No. 159, Australasian Campus
Union Managers Association, p.7
[24] Submission No. 103, Rivcoll Union Inc
[25] Submission No. 260, Monash Unicom Pty
Ltd, p.4
[26] Hansard (Representatives), 12 May
1999, p. 4245
[27] Submission No. 89, Australian Vice-Chancellors'
Committee, p.7
[28] Submission No. 69, Edith Cowan University,
p.3
[29] Submission No. 219, National Union of
Students, p.24
[30] Submission No. 89 Australian Vice-Chancellors'
Committee, p.8