fiat.
Freedom of association
2.2
The committee has read and has heard evidence of the
practical consequences that are likely to arise from this bill. Before dealing
with this evidence it is necessary to give some attention to the central
argument of the Government: that this bill rests on a long-standing belief that
compulsory levying of student services and representation fees is contrary to
principles of freedom of association, and must therefore be prohibited. In
seeking to promote freedom of association, the Government ignores the practical
needs of the majority of students for accessible and affordable services,
notably student welfare, including counselling, representational and advocacy
services in the event of disputes with the university, as well as a range of
cultural, recreational and general amenities provisions.
2.3
Opposition senators believe that students have the
right to freedom of association, thus they must always have the right not to
join their student organisation. This bill conflates the Government’s concern
with freedom of association with student service provision and membership of
the university community. Students need
critical services like childcare, employment services, advocacy to assist them
in their university life. These services
make it possible for many students who would not otherwise attend university to
remain enrolled and complete. This bill
will destroy those services under the guise of freedom of association. Payment of a fee to ensure these services
exist, and to facilitate the student community, in no way, contravenes the
essential right to freedom of association that all students must have. In the case of universities charging student
services fees it can be strongly argued that payment is a condition of
university entrance. The choice which a student exercises is whether or not to
embark on a course of study at a university. In this regard, the consequential
obligation is no different to that which would be incurred by any individual
choosing to join an organisation for the purposes of employment, learning,
recreation or any other satisfaction. There would be few if any organisations
or institutions which one can enter on one's own terms, or remain autonomously
within it.
2.4
Conflict arises in any consideration of competing or
conflicting rights and responsibilities, as in the case of individual rights
and the social good. Since the study of these has preoccupied political
philosophers and jurisprudential thinkers for at least a millennium, opposition
senators content themselves with only the brief observation that freedom of
association, and the rights it may confer, in the context of this legislation,
must be qualified by consideration of the rights of the student community.
2.5
Freedom of association is not genuinely at risk in the
circumstances which this bill is intended to operate. There are other rights
and responsibilities in contention with freedom of responsibility, and with
which it must compete. Essentially, legislators must aim at fulfilling the
greatest needs for the greatest number. It follows that the rights of
individuals who may choose to 'opt out' of community obligations are reasonably
regarded as undermining the viability of services available to all. Analogies
have been drawn with other political or administrative entities which impose
taxes on everyone regardless of the services drawn upon by individual
taxpayers. The essence of the argument
is valid. It comes down to whether one regards a university as broadly a
'community of scholars', or whether one views it as simply another service
provider like a retailer or a bank. As the committee learned at its hearings at
the University of New
England, it is sometimes claimed that universities
are not communities in any sense. Rather, individuals 'contract' themselves to
a university for very limited utilitarian purposes.[12] To say the least, this utilitarian
view of higher education is vehemently contested by most university
administrations and student bodies, and appears not to be accepted by any
member of this committee.
2.6
A common line of Government party senators' questioning
was whether proponents of VSU, especially university administrators, considered
that students lacked the capacity and maturity of judgement to decide whether
or not they wanted to join student organisations. The implication of the
question was that students were being treated in a patronising way through
being obliged to join an organisation. The answer of Opposition senators is,
unequivocally, that at the point of enrolment, students become members of a
community. Student organisations
facilitate this community – they not only offer services but also provide
opportunities for development. Student organisations assist their community
members, that is, students, in times of need, like academic appeals,
counselling, tenancy and employment advice. This is similar to the role that
local councils or governments more broadly, play in return for rates and taxes.
Guild or student organisation membership can be regarded as insurance, an
imposed levy which serves both the individual and the common good. There are,
however, very few student organisations that now require compulsorily
membership to be enrolled in a course of study.
2.7
This legislation elevates an individual's right to 'opt
out' of a community obligation, at the expense of a benefit to a community. In
doing so it contributes to the decline of a community consciousness, as well as
the more measurable deterioration of public service and facilities. Much stress
has been placed on the loss of services and facilities in the majority of
submissions. Opposition senators agree that this is a serious problem. What
should cause more profound unease is the way in which the legislation enshrines
a belief that an individual benefit conferred on a fortunate individual need
not be acknowledged by any token of responsibility toward the collective
institution which has bestowed that benefit. Some submissions, including the Vice-Chancellor of ANU Professor Ian
Chubb in evidence to the Inquiry, used the analogy that universities are like
local councils:
I have always run the
argument ... that you pay to be a member of a community just as I pay to be a
member of a community through my rates and taxes and everything. ... However, I
do not use anything like the services that are provided by my community, but I
pay in order for other people to be able to use the services that they need as
part of their membership of that community. I do not use the public library or
the local swimming pool, but other people do. I think that the provision of
those services goes to making a community and it is through communities that
Australia will get strong, not through 20 million individuals finding their own
way around the tree without due regard for the neighbours and the others who
are trying to find their way too. So I am somebody who believes in a sense of
community. I think of the ANU community as my extended family and my job is to
look after it. Part of that is to provide services that they need to have a
fruitful, prosperous, enjoyable life at university with a lot of hard work
added in, because they work pretty hard.[13]
2.8
The same legislators as will support the passage of
this bill may bemoan the fact that Australian universities have few private
benefactors, and that their alumni lack a consciousness of any obligations of
generosity to the institutions which gave them their start to a rewarding life.
If only our universities were like those of the United
States, they may well say. But in the United
States belief in 'individualism' is part of
the fabric of national life, just as universities in that country are diverse
and dynamic institutions, generously supported by their alumni. The committee
has nonetheless been made aware of United States
universities like Harvard and University
of Illinois that charge thousands
of dollars in student services fees because they believe these services to be
part of the education mission.[14] In
the United States
no government would presume to regulate universities in the way which has been
done here, and so far as research can reveal, students in that country pay
services fees set by the university in recognition of their obligation to the
collective good.
2.9
The connection between the university experience of
students in the United States
and continued support from the alumni was a point made by the Acting Vice
Chancellor of the University of Western
Australia:
... all the evidence is there in the United States that, if the
university makes the effort with student fees, in their case, and goes beyond
that to support a very vibrant student experience, the students are likely to
support that university later on. ... If the university, whether it be through an
amenities fee or any other way, makes no effort for these students, the
evidence is that the students will make no effort for the university once they
are graduates.[15]
2.10
Opposition senators make the point that university
administrators, being keenly aware of trends and practices in university
administration abroad, and embracing the need to attract students in an
internationally competitive market, will be embarrassingly hamstrung in their
efforts by current government policies. These betray an obsession with
centralised bureaucratic control and eccentric tendencies by way of political
engineering. They are the cause of so much irritation because they are
irrelevant to core business of universities, yet result in both unnecessary
conflict and burdensome administrative costs. The VSU controversy is an
instance of this.
Likely effects of the bill
2.11
Most evidence received by the committee described the
likely effect the bill would have on service provision and on the quality of
university experience enjoyed by students. Most agreed that the result would be
a sharp reduction in the quality and quantity of services available on campus.
Large numbers of students would be disadvantaged, particularly those requiring
special support, such as childcare and counselling, to continue their studies.
Some universities submitted that they were in a position to assist student
organisations, but they would not be able to commit the same aggregate level of
resources presently raised via a compulsory student services and amenities fee.
2.12
Local communities also stand to lose, particularly in
rural areas, as student organisations shed staff and the student services
economy contracts. For a number of university towns in rural Australia,
where compulsory fees comprise a relatively high proportion of student
organisation income, this will prove particularly damaging.[16]
2.13
The range and quantity of services provided through
student organisations is, on many campuses, remarkable. This is testament to
the energy of student leadership and acknowledges the diversity of student needs
and interests. Perhaps the broadest of these services is representation, a role
usually performed by the student representative council (SRC) or its
equivalent. The workload of a student representative in a modern university is
substantial. In addition to participating in the organisation of student
activities, student representatives, particularly executive members, constitute
the voice of students on a large number of councils, boards and committees.
They are, as far as universities are concerned, the student voice. Professor
den Hollander put it this way:
The most important thing from my perspective was student
representation in terms of their capacity to interact with the university and
assist with decision making. As we know, students are our core business; they
are why we exist, when all is said and done. While I do not like to use the
word ‘stakeholder’, they are the major stakeholders and it is appropriate that
they are involved. It is appropriate that they involved from a strong position
where they are elected and they have representation and trust in their own
student bodies. Interestingly, that was one of the things that fell with VSU.[17]
2.14
While SRCs usually operate on only a small proportion
of student fee income, the removal of that income would seriously erode the
ability of representatives to perform their roles effectively. Sadly, students
are most unlikely to appreciate the work which goes on 'behind the scenes' on
their behalf, and for this reason are unlikely to contribute voluntarily to its
continuation.
2.15
Advocacy support was perhaps the most commonly cited
instance of an important service likely to be threatened by the current bill.
The loss of such services disadvantages particularly those least able to
advocate for themselves in matters affecting university rules and decisions
which adversely affect them. These services can relate to issues of academic
progress, grievances, and other interactions with university administration.
The Chair of the Interim Student Representative Council (ISRC) from the University
of Melbourne submitted that without
advocacy support some students would be required to stop their studies without
graduating.[18] Should welfare services
need to be supported by universities, resources must be drawn from elsewhere.
Specialist advocacy services can only, by their very nature, be provided by
student organisations. Universities cannot take responsibility on the grounds
of conflict of interest.
2.16
In recent years, university student organisations have
developed an exciting array of specialist employment services, ranging from
casual and vacation based employment, course-related employment to careers
advice and professional employment beyond graduation. Such services are often
augmented by opportunities for students to meet recruiters from major employer
organisations, ensuring that the transition from university study to work is
considerably eased. The implementation of this bill is likely to emasculate an
impressive and sorely needed portfolio of employment services. The loss of these
employment opportunities is likely to be especially pronounced at regional
institutions and in their associated economies.
2.17
Another critical service likely to be affected is
childcare. La Trobe University Children's Centre submitted that it provided a childcare
service to about 250 families per week, and that the majority of the Centre's
clients were students receiving maximum Centrelink assistance. Without this
support, it was submitted, a significant number of (mostly women) students
would not be able to continue their university studies.[19] There are likely to be implications
for student retention rates if student association subsidies cease as a result
of this legislation.
2.18
The Government has consistently argued that 'the
market' will cater for students making an economic choice to purchase
unsubsidised services. 'The market' is a blunt instrument, especially so if the
returns to business are considered to be too low to warrant the provision of a
service.
2.19
Food and beverage provision is often seen as a lucrative
area of activity for student organisations, and is probably the most visible
service offered to students. Most, if not all, student organisation service
providers operate cafeterias, often providing multiple outlets on a single
campus. Although prices are usually subsidised by compulsory student fees, most
operations generate profits which are then directed back to students in the
form of still cheaper prices or extra services.
2.20
Another key activity of student organisations is the
staging and subsidy of social and cultural activities for students,
contributing to a vibrant campus life which adds real value to a university
profile. Opposition senators understand the importance of such events,
activities and traditions in developing social and organisational skills, as
well as lifelong contacts. Those choosing to take part in the organisation and
running of activities obtain the added benefits of teamwork, leadership,
interpersonal and negotiation skills. Campus
Life, the Griffith Student Union journal, submitted that in 2004 it
sponsored 233 events involving 6752 participants.[20] The Melbourne University ISRC argued
that it:
... puts on a range of events for students including film nights,
bands, barbeques, cultural events and night markets. These are subsidised or
free of charge and provide students with a wide array of activities to make
their time at university more enjoyable and encourage social and cultural
interaction. [These activities] aid students' personal development, offering
students a broader educational experience than what is learned in lecture
theatres... [I]t has also been demonstrated that there is a positive correlation
between participation in extracurricular activities and student retention and
progression rates.[21]
The special case of university sport
2.21
The committee heard evidence of the effect the bill on
sport and recreation facilities and services. The provision of affordable sport
and recreation facilities not only encourages health and fitness, but is
important in strengthening links between the university and its supporting
community. This is particularly so in rural areas. What is described here in
relation to the University of New
England can be applied to most university sports
associations. Citing an anticipated loss of $850 000 in annual operational
income, The University of New England Sports Association reported that half of
its full time staff would be retrenched, that no funds would be available for
maintenance of sporting fields or indoors facilities, and that intervarsity,
intercollegiate and club sport subsidies would be withdrawn. Infrastructure
worth $12 million could be underutilised and inadequately maintained. The
Association would also be forced to compromise insurance cover on its
facilities, increase user fees, and open fewer hours.[22]
2.22
Such measures would reduce access of students to sports
facilities and eventually deny also to the local community access to sports
facilities at UNE for the reason that they could no longer be maintained.
Financial constraints would inhibit the UNE's ability to host sports camps and
major championship events, affecting not only the Association but also colleges
on campus for whom accommodation revenue at vacation period is critical.
Similarly wide ranging effects were anticipated by all other sports
associations which made submissions.[23]
2.23
Submissions have pointed to the contradiction between
the effect of the bill on university sport, and the aims of the Government's
own health and fitness policies. Australian University Sport submitted that the
bill would have the effect of removing $32 million from sport, health and
fitness in both Australian universities and the broader community.
... inconsistencies with government policies on sport, health and
fitness, one of which is the user-pays myth that sport, health and fitness can
be funded on a user pays basis. This is totally inconsistent with government
expenditure at federal, state and local levels where $2.2 billion is invested
annually...we would also like to think there is a major inconsistency in the
government's investment of $90 million into sport, health and fitness for
children at primary school or high school. We look at that and ask, "Where
do we find a corresponding opportunity for our organisations to be able to
raise the essential funds to be able to provide the infrastructure that is so
important for these activities?"[24]
2.24
It should be kept in mind that a significant number of
universities in Australia
are spread over more than one campus. Central
Queensland University,
for instance, operates at nine different campuses. Replicating infrastructure
and services for the benefit of students on each campus inevitably involves
added expense, further straining the resources of student organisations.
Australian University Sport submitted that nation-wide more than $600 million
of sporting infrastructure built up over generations of student contributions
would be jeopardised by the removal of guaranteed revenue streams.[25] The committee also heard that
community sporting competitions, especially in rural areas, rely on the
participation of university sporting teams and facilities to remain viable. If
university sporting clubs were forced to withdraw from a local competition, it
could render the entire competition unviable.
2.25
Government senators supporting this bill appear to
believe that students attending university should only expect to be provided
with a narrowly focussed academic experience and that a well-rounded campus
life is neither necessary nor desirable. This view fails to take into account
the interconnectedness of academic and campus life, particularly as it relates
to participation in sport and recreational activities. In the words of Senator
elect Barnaby Joyce:
... Now
when you go to a university you acknowledge that you are going to an institution
that is both buildings and fields – 'mens sana in corpus sana’ a healthy mind and a healthy
body – and sport is a great mechanism for getting some social interaction going
... .[26]
Postgraduate students
2.26
Postgraduate associations provide students with services
which are different in character to those provided to undergraduates.
Nonetheless, the committee heard that the effect of the bill on those services
would be the same. Services relating to candidature and academic issues,
research for quality assurance, and support for international and external
postgraduates through the provision of study corrals and other study facilities
would be severely curtailed, if not discontinued. If anything, the effect on
postgraduates associations would be swifter and more dramatic, as they tend to
draw all or most of their income from the compulsory fee, and rarely engage in
commercial activities to bolster their income.[27]
Effect on universities
2.27
Vice chancellors have argued that the inability to
provide an adequate range of services and amenities would inhibit the ability
of their universities to attract students.[28]
With domestic and international demand weakening, universities such as UNE have
to find new and novel ways to sell themselves. Vice Chancellor Moses
put it this way:
UNE's recruitment hinges significantly on the "UNE
package" of both academic offerings and health, welfare and support
services and cultural opportunities, which attract students to study in a
regional location where otherwise study at a metropolitan location would be
more attractive.[29]
2.28
International students are heavy users of services such
as advocacy, not surprisingly given difficulties with language and culture. The
National Liaison Committee for International Students in Australia
argued that:
Universities have always promoted themselves and Australia
as a preferred destination on the basis of multiculturalism and student support
services available on campus. Under VSU, support services will be costly and
expenses for international students will increase, which will make Australia
less competitive. The tuition fee which is already high for many programs and
is equal to the US, coupled with medical fees and the highest visa charges, it
is anyone’s guess how many international students Australia will attract in
coming years. The numbers are already slowing down and international students
are already indicating that Australian education is not giving them the value
for money. With such major issues looming over international education sector,
introduction of VSU bill is self-destroying.[30]
2.29
The international student market is important to
Australian universities. Making up 25 per cent of the student population,
international students contribute $1.7 billion in fees, and are worth $5.9
billion to the Australian economy.[31]
The government has chosen to ignore the needs of foreign students, and has
failed to realise the potential for them to study elsewhere as a result of
Australian universities being forced to offer a sub-standard university
experience.
2.30
The ultimate responsibility of university
administrations for student services looms as a serious problem to be faced in
a number of universities, particularly in the newer and smaller institutions.
The committee heard evidence of the likelihood that at least some student
organisations would become insolvent with the successful passage of the bill. Mr
Kevin Stapleton
of the University of Southern
Queensland Student Guild reported to the
committee that, even if a significant number of students chose to remain
members of the student organisation and pay their fees, the guild would be
forced to retrench all staff. Mr Stapleton
submitted that:
[A]s an incorporated association, the board have a fiducial
responsibility to not trade if they believe that they may become insolvent. In
order to protect staff entitlements of approximately $800 000, the board have a
responsibility to ensure that if they are unsure of the income that may come in
next year, they cannot, in accordance with their corporate responsibilities,
continue to trade.[32]
2.31
Like a number of other student organisations, USQ also
carries debt incurred for the construction of buildings. This debt would have
to be assumed by the university in the event that the guild was unable to
function at a level at which it could repay the loan.
2.32
In the event that other student organisations take a
similar view to that of USQ (and this may depend on the application of state
laws) the bill could see student organisations in several universities forced
to close. Again, the university would be responsible for student services
arrangements, and this task would be likely to last into the long-term. Such
consequences have been left unexamined by those trying to impose this bill on
universities and their students.
The wider community interest
2.33
The effects of this bill do not stop at the campus
gates. The Australian Campus Union Managers' Association (ACUMA) submitted that
of the $1 billion or more in gross receivables taken by the campus services
sector nationally, around $170 million is derived from compulsory fees.
They point out that VSU is likely to see fees income contract to around $45
million, a fall of $125 million. ACUMA draws on the West Australian experience,
discussed later in this dissenting report, to conclude that gross sector wide receivables
are likely to decline by half or more, to less than $500 million per annum.
2.34
The effects of income reduction will have their most
obvious and significant effect on the staff employed by student organisations,
and the external suppliers of goods and services. Of the estimated 14 000
people employed in campus service provision nationally, it is forecast from the
Western Australian experience, that around 30 per cent, or about 4 200 people,
will be made redundant.[33] Many of the
newly unemployed will have lost part-time jobs, significantly in new or
regionally-based universities, which generally do not have significant cash
reserves with which to sustain themselves. Alarmingly, given the findings of
the EWRE references committee's recent inquiry into student income support,
many of the retrenched will be students.
2.35
The bill has scant regard for campuses outside the
major cities, and represents a threat to those regional communities who rely on
the economic activity generated by student service provision. Many of the local
clubs and societies which have come to rely on university infrastructure will
also lose out, as facilities become run down, or are withdrawn from use. Local
economies in rural and non-metropolitan areas will suffer most acutely through the
implementation of this policy because university campuses account for a
substantial proportion of demand for goods and services.
2.36
The committee heard evidence that in the case of La
Trobe University, which has six non-metropolitan campuses, 43 staff of that
organisation are likely to lose their employment and about $1.4 million will be
taken out of local rural economies in Victoria.
In addition, local university facilities will not be able to be maintained for
use by local community organisations.[34]
This problem would be felt in rural areas across the nation.
2.37
The committee also heard of the likely effect in
Armidale, where support services for the university and its students are a
cornerstone of the local economy. The effect of a multi-million dollar withdrawal
of funds from a community like this could be serious. The university acts as a
resource for the community, particularly in relation to sporting fields,
conference facilities and cultural events. If funding for the development and
maintenance of such facilities is not available, they will be lost to the
community. Mr Gerard
Stephen, Chair of the Armidale Community
International Sports Precinct Fundraising Committee, put it this way:
As well as directly benefiting the students of UNE, facilities
are available for the use of the wider university and Armidale communities,
helping the region and the university to attract and retain qualified staff and
their families to live and work here. Within a VSU environment, facilities and
services such as student advocacy and maintenance of playing fields which by
their nature generate very limited revenue, yet require a high level of
resources to maintain will fall to the university to fund, or will result in
the decline in facilities and increased pressure on those provided by the local
council, welfare organisations, or Armidale sporting clubs.[35]
Experience with VSU in Western Australia
and Victoria
2.38
Two very different models of VSU were introduced in
1994 by the Kennett government in Victoria,
and by the (Richard) Court government in Western
Australia. When first introduced, the main point of
distinction between the two models was that Victorian students were still able
to be charged a compulsory fee, even where they chose not to join a student
organisation. This fee could be allocated by universities to student bodies
according to a prescribed list of activities, which excluded political
activity. In Western Australia,
universities were prohibited from charging students a compulsory fee.
Legislation in that state made guild membership voluntary. The list of
prescribed activities for Victoria
was broadened in 1996, and replaced in 2000 by the Bracks government with the
requirement that universities could charge a fee to provide facilities,
services or activities of direct benefit to students. Western
Australia adopted a model similar to the one in place
in Victoria
for the beginning of the 2003 academic year.
2.39
The most immediate effect of the West Australian
legislation was a dramatic loss in income as only a small proportion of
students chose to pay fees. The University
of Western Australia and Curtin
University retained a membership of
about 30 per cent, while Edith Cowan Student Guild dropped to 6 per cent. The Murdoch
University student organisation did
comparatively well, retaining 35 per cent of the student body as members.[36] It was observed that members of
student organisations were forced to spend more time marketing the
organisation, and less time delivering services.[37]
2.40
The nature of student services is that viability and
access are maximised where services are used widely and the revenue base for
services is broad. Once a significant number of users withdraw, the capacity to
provide for low volume services, or services provided at lower demand times,
reduced significantly. When services become restricted, fewer will seek to use
them, and a downward spiral develops in which the services fall away. Students
see a declining benefit in their membership of the organisation, and patronage
falls.[38] This 'reverse multiplier effect'
is debilitating, and accounts for the larger drop in projected income for
student organisations under VSU than might be anticipated merely from
extrapolating projected voluntary membership.
2.41
The Government has argued that student services
substantially continued under VSU in WA, even going so far as to say that
services 'flourished'.[39] This is
demonstrably the opposite of what really happened. In claiming that services
were substantially continued under VSU in Western
Australia, proponents neglect to report the massive
assistance rendered by universities and by the Commonwealth to ensure that this
was the case. Commonwealth support was discontinued after 1996, by the Howard
government, leaving universities to assist student organisations. During this
committee's inquiry into the 1999 bill, the acting Vice Chancellor of Edith
Cowan University advised the committee that in 1998 the university had provided
$100 000 to their guild to support a limited range of representational, social
and cultural activities. Such measures put pressure on the university's funding
for its academic program, but there was no alternative if the university was to
remain competitive locally and internationally.[40] Services which may have continued for
the first couple of years after VSU only survived through external subsidy. It
is a demonstrably false claim that services 'flourished' under the VSU system.
2.42
Even with the assistance received from universities and
from the Commonwealth until 1996, student services at universities in WA were
not fully maintained. At the University
of Western Australia Guild, alone,
the committee heard that twenty eight employees were laid off, the guild
computer lounge, sexual assault service, and accident insurance for students
were all cancelled, and budgets for other student services were cut by up to 80
per cent.[41] Curtin University Guild
lost $3 million in revenue the year following the introduction of VSU, as
membership plummeted to 10 per cent. There were fourteen staff redundancies,
and a range of services discontinued. More dramatically, Edith Cowan University
Student Guild went into liquidation in 1999 as a direct consequence of the WA
legislation. The current bill most
closely resembles the legislation introduced in WA, and it was in that state
that most harm was caused to student services and to the quality of university
services.
2.43
The Victorian situation was somewhat different, as
universities continued to collect compulsory fees. The legislation prescribed
the types of activities able to be funded through fees collected, and this was
subsequently broadened to encompass most of the activities undertaken pre-1994.
The result was that associations in Victoria
continued to offer a generally wide range of services, and membership of
organisations, although voluntary, remained high.[42]
2.44
As noted earlier, membership of student organisations
in Victoria
is voluntary and yet the bill as presented would prevent the payment by
students in that state of a universal services and amenities fee, even though
such a fee is necessarily unrelated to considerations of organisational
membership. This suggests to opposition senators that the proponents of the
bill are merely using arguments regarding the undesirability of compulsory
membership as a smoke screen to obscure other ideologically driven aims and
objectives.
2.45
Universities are the only possible source of
supplementary funding for organisations in the event of the bill passing
unamended. While some universities have signalled their ability to supplement
revenue at the margins, as happened in WA, none claim to be able to replace
student fees in their entirety. A number of vice chancellors indicated that
they were examining which services they would be most likely to be able to
fund, should the bill proceed, with the clear implication that many valuable
services and amenities will be discontinued rapidly.[43]
Private enterprise on campus
2.46
The Government has argued that the market will cater
for students making an economic choice to purchase unsubsidised services. It is
argued that with additional discretional money at their disposal, since the
removal of the compulsory fee, students will take advantage of wider choice and
improved competition. But as noted earlier in this report, the market cannot be
relied on to provide the goods and services which students need. The Government's
expectations are based on some theoretical model of market competition which
ignores certain realities which pertain to university campuses.
2.47
First, there is some doubt that commercial retailers
will find sufficient incentives to establish outlets in universities. Students
spend barely more than half the year on campus, and retailers must endure
longer than normal periods of low trading, without the possibility of pricing
their goods and services at a premium during periods of peak custom. It is
believed that rural campuses will be especially affected in this regard. UNE
was able to draw on actual experience in making the point:
A number of services have already proven unviable to operate
commercially, with two banks closing down their campus operations, the
Commonwealth in 1998 and the National Australia Bank in 2001. The on-campus
travel agent franchise and real estate business shop front recently closed
down, and in 2003 the student organisation took over the post office...and the
hairdressing salon in order to ensure those services would still be available
on campus.[44]
2.48
It is highly unlikely that commercial services lost
under current arrangements would return in the more straitened circumstances of
VSU.
2.49
Second, students, particularly undergraduates, are
predominantly low income earners with limited spending capacity. They require
services which are basic and inexpensive. Such services, which have been
provided effectively by student organisations for many years, also need to be
responsive to changing student needs and interests, or they will cease to be
relevant or attractive to their customers. Student organisations are uniquely
well-placed to stay in touch with changing student priorities.
2.50
The need to drive both efficiency and competition in
provision of student services was highlighted by Government party senators.
This received a cautious response from ACUMA about the realities of university
marketing.
Retail operates on the brutal truth of feet past the door. If
the level of activity around guild premises or union premises is diminishing
because of the lack of funding of activities or other services and if there are
no feet past the door, then whether it is a union operated outlet or a private
enterprise operated outlet, if that traffic is not being generated, there can
quite clearly be some knock-on effects on both union services and private
services. [45]
2.51
This refers to the maxim that business attracts
business, and that crowds mean sales. It is a concept familiar to shopping mall
proprietors, who maximise returns from a careful mix of retailers. But if core
funding on important services is cut, equivalent to the departure of a leading
retailer, the reverse multiplier effect will come into play.
2.52
Another difficulty for commercial retailers in
universities may be that in some circumstances their profitability may be
further eroded by peculiar needs of students and community life on campus. One
submission, from the University of Adelaide Union has pointed to instances
where its role would be in conflict with commercial retailing:
In many instances the interests of the members of the AUU and
the commercial imperative of the AUU ... are in direct conflict. For example, a
free BBQ for AUU members on the Barr-Smith Lawns, which are directly in front
of the AUU's main food outlet, is beneficial for members of the AUU, but is
contrary to commercial interests. Likewise, the provision of food for minority
groups, such as Halal and vegetarian options, are beneficial to members but are
not commercially viable. Unibooks face a similar difficulty in stocking highly
specialised academic texts that do not sell sufficient quantities to be
profitable.[46]
Advocacy and representational roles of student organisations threatened
2.53
Although it can be anticipated that commercial
retailers will have a difficult time taking up their assumed role in
substituting for current services provision by student organisations, the
fee-for-service businesses presently run by student organisations will have an
equally difficult time, and like commercial retailers, will need to seriously
compromise they way they have traditionally operated. They will need to make
profits in order to fund essential services for which fees cannot be charged.
This will distort the usual role of student organisations, and oblige them to
devote more of their efforts toward marketing their wares.
2.54
This experience was rather an unhappy one for guilds in
Western Australia when VSU
operated in that state. Government party senators have stated the necessity for
student organisations to market themselves to attract student membership, but
this creates problems for student leaders who see their main role as being
advocates for student interests, both collectively and individually. The Pro Vice
Chancellor of the Curtin University of Technology had some comments to make on
this point, recollecting that student leaders had to spend so much time
marketing to the student body and saying, ‘Please come and join us; this is
what we can do for you.’
They had to spend a lot of time in what I would call hospitality
management. That attracts a different kind of person than perhaps the broad
group of people that you need to get the kind of representation you have in
universities. There was a drop-off in the energy that was required to do the
representation on the committees of the universities, because so much time was
spent in marketing and making sure that they got their memberships up.[47]
2.55
Professor den
Hollander stated that in the VSU days the
effectiveness of the representative role of student organisations was to some
extent compromised because they had less time to devote to their core function.
I would say that the intensity of what they had to concern
themselves with was diverted from the very things we might have wished them to
spend 100 per cent of their time on into things that maybe they needed to spend
their time on. They had to become money raisers rather than be representatives
of their community. I think the two things are somewhat different. I spoke to
some of the guild presidents during that period and I remember one famously
saying to me, ‘I’m just a hospitality manager; I need to make sure we have the
money so that I can do the other stuff but the time I have to spend getting the
money is much more than it should be compared with the amount of time I need to
spend in the university understanding teaching, learning and research and
development and the very things that impact on student experiences.’[48]
2.56
Opposition senators take this as evidence that student
advocacy services are likely to be threatened in the absence of a student fee,
even if other services manage to survive. It is generally accepted that cost
rules out the use of private practitioners in student advocacy services. The
cost of a solicitor's time at commercial rates far exceeds the annual student
organisation fee. La Trobe University Union, reported that 1 200 students used
the University Union's legal service in 2004. In the absence of advocacy
assistance from the student organisation, students in need of services but not
able to afford professional legal representation would be forced to apply for
legal aid.[49]
2.57
Student advocacy services are regarded by universities
as very important for the purposes of ensuring transparency in their own
appeals processes. Yet this important facility is one which universities will
be unable to provide, or even subsidise. For them to do so would compromise the
independence of the student body and they would be placed in the untenable
position of advocating against themselves. This conflict of interest would not
only diminish the likelihood of a fair hearing, but would also result in a
perception of justice not being seen to be done. As the Distance Education
Liaison Officer from the Rivcoll Union at Charles
Sturt University
explained:
Advocacy requires direct challenges to the university and its
staff. It is hard to imagine how mechanisms could be put in place to protect
employees from pressure from more senior university members. It is even more
fanciful to suggest that universities would engage barristers on behalf of
student to challenge the legality of its own decisions.[50]
2.58
This dilemma would be one of the most problematic to be
faced by universities in the event of the bill being passed, at least in unamended
form, and is one of many contentious issues conveniently overlooked by the
Government in its single-minded implementation of what it likes to call
'reform'.
Universities as service providers
2.59
Universities will almost certainly be forced into
assuming increased responsibility for provision of services now provided by
student organisations. The extent to which they can afford to do so without
increasing the levels of fees to the limits of their discretion will vary
considerably. This is likely to lead to wider disparities between well-off
universities, and those which are struggling. This may be organised through a
new form of contract between student organisations and their ‘host’
institutions. The Government's proposals are drastic in their scope and effect,
and limited in their vision. Theirs is not a conservative measure because it
fails to protect the standing and the interests of the universities. It is the
antithesis of reform.
2.60
There remains some doubt about the ability of
universities to deploy funds received from the Commonwealth for the provision
of student services.[51] Officials from
the Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST) made clear to the
committee that any university levying a compulsory charge for student
'non-academic' services would run foul of the provisions of the bill. On the
other hand, DEST also advised the committee that universities would be free to
allocate money to student services from any other source of revenue other than
from the Commonwealth. From here on the advice is equivocal:
As you know, we fund universities’ general operations through
the Commonwealth Grant Scheme. The universities are required to deliver a
certain number of student places for that funding, but there is no explicit
prohibition or prescription on how they might go about that. If they choose to
support in certain ways their students who are in those places, again, they
could do that.[52]
2.61
However, such funds would come at the expense of
already scarce resources directed at academic services, the core function of
the university.[53] As noted at the
beginning of this section, the capacity of universities to pay for these
services will vary considerably. Some universities will nonetheless be obliged
to stretch their budgets to cover general student organisation, and even sports
association services and facilities because of their appeal to foreign
fee-paying students and the need to compete on the international student
market.
2.62
Even in the unlikely event that universities were able
to find a way to allocate funds, pressure might still be brought to bear for
the application of a 'private enterprise' business model on services.
University administrations would be less likely to provide services which are
unlikely to either break even or make a profit. A proportion of services
offered by most student organisations, such as childcare, counselling, advocacy
and representation are either not able to be charged out on a 'user pays'
basis, or are required to be subsidised heavily to enable access. This, in most
cases, precludes non-profit services, and would be less attractive to
universities undertaking a service provision role. It is foreseeable that
administrators might consider themselves to be restricted to those activities
and services for which profit could be anticipated, such as unsubsidised retail
outlets.
Penalty clauses
2.63
The Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee has pointed
to some inconsistency in the penalty provisions:
The current penalty provision in the bill is highly unnecessary,
as universities are already subject to penalties provisions in the Act for
failure to meet conditions of funding. It is understood that it is a matter of
Government policy that the Minister should not have discretion on the issue of
the penalty. The AVCC maintains that is makes the penalty provision
inconsistent with the Act, in that the Minister is able to use his discretion
regarding other breaches of funding conditions.[54]
2.64
The Vice-Chancellor of Swinburne University described
the penalty clause as 'insulting'. Another described it as a 'penalty out of
kilter with the crime'.[55] The AVCC has
stated that universities have always worked within the law, and do not need the
folly of badly considered penalties to ensure that they do.[56]
Conclusion
2.65
Can this legislation be described as promoting
effective public policy? The best and only test of legislation is whether it
serves the common good. There is no evidence at all presented by the Government
that this will occur should this bill be passed without amendment. There has
been no agitation in universities in favour of this measure, apart from a very
small number of students who are members of associations affiliated with the
parties of the governing coalition. Nor is there any reason to doubt the
validity of opinion polls on several campuses which indicate significant
majority opposition to the bill before the committee.
2.66
It is clear to opposition senators that this bill, if
enacted, will severely weaken student organisations. It will greatly reduce the
provision of essential services for them, and few students will be unaffected.
The evidence in this regard is not merely speculative. The experience of
universities in Western Australia
is well-documented, and gives all universities and student bodies both serious
cause for concern, and an indication of drastic measures that they will all be
forced to take. Undoubtedly, VSU will diminish the quality and diversity of
university life, which, despite the increasing workloads of most students, is
an important experience in life's development. It is their ideal opportunity to
take on, not only increased personal responsibility and development of
leadership skills, but responsibility for elements of community life in the
service of others.
2.67
Thus, if VSU comes into effect, it will bring no
practical benefit, either to students, the universities, or the wider community
which is served by the facilities and social infrastructure which universities
provide.
Recommendation
Opposition and Democrat
senators urge the Senate to reject this legislation.
Senator Gavin Marshall
Deputy Chair
Senator George Campbell
Senator Natasha Stott Despoja
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page