Chapter 1
Government Senators' Majority Report
Reference
1.1
On 12 February 2009, the Senate referred the provisions of the Higher
Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities, and Other
Measures) Bill 2009 to the Education, Employment and Workplace Relations
committee for inquiry and report by 10 March 2009.
Conduct of the inquiry and submissions
1.2
The committee advertised the inquiry on its website calling for
submissions by 20 February 2009. The committee also directly contacted a number
of organisations and individuals with a particular interest in the issue and to
invite submissions and appearances before the committee. Thirty-six submissions
were received as listed in Appendix 1. These appear on the committee's website.
1.3
A public hearing was held in Melbourne on 4 March 2009. The witnesses are listed at Appendix 2.
1.4
The committee thanks all those who contributed to its inquiry by
preparing written submissions and giving evidence at the hearing.
Provisions of the bill
1.5
Schedule 1 of the bill amends the Higher Education Support Act 2003
to provide that from 1 July 2009, universities may levy a services and
amenities fee to be capped at $250 per student annually, and indexed. Students
may access a loan to pay this fee through a new component of the Higher
Education Loan Program (HELP) to be known as SA-HELP. New benchmarks will come
into force from 2010 giving students access to information about the range of
services and amenities offered in each university, and ensuring the provision
of student representation and advocacy.
1.6
Schedule 2 of the bill amends the VET FEE-HELP scheme provisions of the Higher
Education Support Act 2003, and to broaden guideline-making powers. The
committee has not concerned itself with the contents of this Schedule. Nor has
the committee concerned itself with Schedule 3, dealing with safeguards in the
processing of students' personal information in Tertiary Admission Centres.
Background
1.7
The Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and
Amenities, and Other Measures) Bill 2009 (the bill) represents a solution to
the problem of providing adequate levels of student services and amenities in
universities. It allows universities to levy fees for this purpose, for which
students may take out loans, and places the administrative responsibilities on
universities to provide these services, in accordance with the Guidelines
to be tabled following the passage of the bill.
1.8
The bill addresses problems which have arisen as a consequence of the
passage in 2005 of an amendment to the Higher Education Support Act 2003.
This drastically reduced the funding available for student services by
abolishing compulsory student fees paid to student organisations which provided
the full range of services and amenities. Government policy at the time
appeared to assume the likelihood of reduced revenue, but the legislation was
silent on how the funding shortfall would be met. Its effect was to oblige
universities to divert funds from teaching and research to fund basic
amenities. This legislation adversely affected important extra-curricula
elements of student life and university culture. It cut across university
endeavours to attract foreign students. The bill currently before the committee
is intended to repair this damage and institute a stable funding basis for
student amenities.
1.9
The provision of student services and amenities has been controversial
over the past decade because it has been linked to the issue of compulsory
student unionism. This committee has dealt with this issue twice before, in
1999[1]
and in 2005[2].
The rise of voluntary student
unionism
1.10
With the rise of student activism in the 1960s and 1970s student control
of such services became controversial because the representative role of
student organisations could not, especially in newer universities, be easily
delineated from their services and amenities functions. In longer-established
universities there was often a clear separation of the functions of student
services, student representation and sometimes even sport. In newer
universities this distinction is not generally reflected by the existence of separate
and autonomous bodies, which are more expensive to maintain.
1.11
By the end of the 20th century, student activists on the
Right, were urging that the compulsory levy which funded student services be
abolished. Apart from ideological objections, critics (including many politically
non-aligned students) claimed that some student body organisers were
responsible for the misuse of student funds, and argued against the compulsory
student levy to support services which many students would never use. There has
been some commentary also on the significance of campus political struggles
which the committee is pleased to be able to leave alone, except to note an
insight into the views of the Coalition members of this committee in their
minority report to the EWRE legislation committee in the 1999 VSU inquiry. It
appears that these views have not changed.
There is much that is objectionable in claims made by student
unions, guilds or association that they are a representative voice of students
when they are clearly not. The objection extends beyond the representative
nature or function of student bodies into the whole area of university
extra-curricular activities and services maintained by student bodies. These
functions were based originally on the notion of a communitarian or
collectivist tradition in universities, but that is now increasingly at odds
with the needs and aspirations of contemporary students. This trend has been evident
for some time. It has come under criticism from those students who have
objected to the antics of political fringe groups who have used their control
of student bodies in a number of universities over many years, to advance
particular causes. It has come also from those students who object to the
provision of unnecessary services and activities, and the provision of
subsidised services that could be provided by independent commercial operators,
often at a lower cost.[3]
1.12
Voluntary student unions (VSU) was the goal of the Coalition government
from 1996 but was not enacted until 2005. As would be obvious from the above, the
core of the VSU policy was a determination to uphold the right of
self-determination for individuals. It represented a rejection of communitarianism
in university life, consistent with individualistic ideals which also underlaid
the Coalition's commitment to Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs) rather
than to collective agreements. The Coalition government felt strongly that
students should not be obliged to pay for services which they would not choose
to use, nor join organisations which were unlikely to represent their
interests. This allowed a student to engage in 'normal student life', what ever
that might mean, selecting the services desired and the extra-curricular
attractions on offer, and paying for them accordingly. VSU represented the
application of the principle of self-determination to campus life. Its appeal
was in some way intended to be popular for those who have expectations that the
routine of university life to be bus – lectures – bus – home.
The failure of VSU
1.13
Since compulsory levies were abolished in 2005, the cost of legislating
to make an ideological point has bourn heavily on the vast majority of students
who remain largely indifferent to campus political activity, but who need to
eat and otherwise miss the services formerly provided by student unions.
1.14
Coalition senators looking at the issue on two previous occasions
dismissed the idea that students and universities would suffer from the loss of
compulsory student union membership funds. The reports of both 1999 and 2005 make
largely identical counter arguments to the claims made about the vulnerability
of institutions like university sport, food services and other amenities. But
the arguments presented in both reports indicate that Coalition senators were
running two apparently similar, but in fact, opposite arguments. First, there
will be no adverse consequences. Students will come to terms with the changed
circumstances. They will agree to pay more. Or fresh thinking will energise the
way services are delivered. But if that does not happen, no one will notice. If
they do, it will not be important.
1.15
Thus, as to the likely effects of VSU on sports and clubs, Coalition senators
were generous with good advice about injecting an entrepreneurial spirit into
university sport, and of universities seeking funds from the community in
return for sharing facilities. However, if, as was generally anticipated in
2005, funding fell from $40 million to $8 million, this would merely reflect
the level of genuine student interest. But, when all was said and done,
Coalition senators put the view that sports and clubs were of interest to only
relatively few students. These were distinctively extra curricula activities.[4]
1.16
In support of VSU, the Coalition government argued that students should
not be forced to pay for services which they may not choose to use. This
particularly applies to external or part-time students who spend little time on
campus. It was expected that VSU would allow market forces to 'produce self-sustaining
student organisations which could continue to provide services [which were]
valued and demanded by the student community.'[5]
Similarly, the government believed that students should not be forced to join
associations and that they should certainly not be forced to contribute
financially to such associations. Another argument made in support of VSU is
that the most effective method of allocating resources is the 'user pays'
model.[6]
The impact of VSU
1.17
The impact of VSU on student services has been mostly negative.[7]
The Minister for Youth, Hon. Kate Ellis MP, stated that:
...close to $170 million was ripped out of university funding
resulting in the decline and in some instances complete closure of vital
health, counselling, employment, child care, and welfare support services.[8]
1.18
Many submissions to this inquiry support the claim that, following VSU,
student services and amenities have been weakened or reduced to a significant extent,
not only in quality but also in accessibility and range of services. VSU has
caused a decline in all student services. In addition to the decline in
services and amenities, the capacity for student advocacy and representation
has also seriously declined.
The loss of independent advocacy for students was a direct
result of the Voluntary Student Union legislation implemented by the previous
Government.[9]
1.19
Furthermore, VSU has particularly affected certain groups of students.
CAPA notes that postgraduate students are one of the most disadvantaged groups
of students following the introduction of VSU.[10]
One reason for this is the risk of isolation for postgraduate students. CAPA
noted that inadequate student services and support for a ‘collegial research environment’
can lead to isolation and declining completion rates.[11]
Postgraduate and international students are students that we should be
encouraging into universities; yet, the decline of student services and
amenities as a result of VSU has been a disincentive for them. The
effects of VSU have also been more destructive at regional university campuses
and those in low socio-economic areas.[12]
The issues relating to regional universities will be covered in more detail below.
Similarly, the Postgraduate Association of the University of Western Sydney
states that the impact of VSU has been stronger upon newer universities;[13]
these universities do not usually have extensive existing infrastructure and
the student organisations on these campuses, lacking reserves built up over
time, are entirely reliant upon fees.
1.20
One of the serious effects of VSU is that some universities have been
forced to redirect funds from the areas of teaching and research, in order to
fund essential student services and amenities.[14]
This is an indication that student services and amenities have generally received
inadequate funding as a result of VSU.[15]
In addition, the redirection of funds to student services exacerbates the
existing under-funding of universities in general. A situation where funds are
being taken from areas which are themselves in need of more funds is simply
unsatisfactory.[16]
The fact that higher education in Australia is generally under-funded
indicates that universities, in lieu of student organisations, are unable to
adequately fund student services themselves, without further funding increases
or a decline in quality.
1.21
Generally, prices for services and amenities on campuses have increased
following the introduction of VSU.[17]
The user-pays model often leads to higher prices and unfairly disadvantages
poorer students who do not have ‘ready cash’.[18]
Although supporters of VSU claim that students are saving money because they do
not have to pay for fees,[19]
it would appear that increases in prices have generally exceeded these savings.
One example of price increases is the cost to students for use of sporting
facilities; these increases can be significant, such as 'the near trebling of
fees for the use of ANU owned sports grounds.'[20]
Although participation in sporting activities is a choice and providing sports
facilities is not a necessary service, other important student services have
also had cost increases; examples include food outlets on campus (in some
cases, prices are now more expensive on campus than in private outlets off-campus)
and child care services, which can be so expensive that they are out of reach
for many students, even if places are available.[21]
1.22
It may also be true that the full effect of VSU is not yet readily
observable. Many student organisations have dipped into limited savings and
reserves in order to continue providing services which they feel are necessary
but under-funded.[22]
Such reserves are finite. A further complication is that many universities have
large deferred maintenance liabilities which continue to increase with time;
many student organisations have also avoided upkeep and maintenance on existing
buildings during the period of VSU due to inadequate resources. Similarly, some
student organisations and universities have been relying upon transitional
funding which will not continue in the long-term. Future options available to
such student organisations include reducing the range or quality of services or
halting some services totally. These issues indicate that the true breadth of
damage resulting from VSU may not yet be clear.[23]
1.23
In Western Australia state legislation was introduced in 1994 to prevent
students paying fees for student services and amenities. VSU supporters have
cited the progress of WA student organisations as positive examples of the benefits
of VSU.[24]
The multi-campus Edith Cowan University (ECU) Student Guild was seriously
affected in its capacity to provide student support services, as were other WA
universities. The UWA Student Guild stated that state VSU legislation 'brought
most Student organisations in WA to their knees.'[25]
The Commonwealth introduced emergency funding to assist student organisations in
Western Australia facing a loss of revenue. There was some relief when in
2002 the WA government repealed the legislation prohibiting the charging of student
services and amenities fees.
Student services and amenities
1.24
On many campuses, there has been a degradation of services and amenities
which contribute to a positive overall experience of university life for
students.[26]
Funding for student services and amenities, following VSU, has clearly been
inadequate.[27]
This under-funding of student services has occurred at a time of increasing
demand for student services and followed significant cuts to the funding of
tertiary education in general.[28]
Yet, student services in general, and advocacy services in particular, can be
key factors in improving student completion rates (of part-time postgraduate
students, for example) and supporting students at risk, such as those from low
socio-economic backgrounds. 'There is no clear line between activities in
support of a quality student experience and support services to students.'[29]
Compulsory student unionism
1.25
The provisions of the current bill do not represent a return to
compulsory student unionism. The government has given a number of assurances to
those concerned about such a return.[30]
The two issues of compulsory student unionism and charging students a services
and amenities fee are entirely separate, despite the fact that these issues
have often been linked to justify the introduction of VSU. Moreover, the issue
of students voluntarily joining student organisations, unions or guilds is
distinct from the option of charging students a services and amenities fee.
There needs to be a distinction between the fees students pay to
fund freely available essential services ... and the decision by students to
support their student organisation as a member ... In WA, at the last repeal of
VSU, these two issues were distinguished from one another. A compulsory amenities
and services fee was charged to all students, and students had to decide
whether to become a member of their guild.[31]
1.26
Many student services and amenities have declined to a great degree
since the introduction of VSU. Overseas students have claimed that it is now
imperative that this decline is addressed.[32]
There is a need to charge for such services to restore much-needed services and
amenities on campuses.
... Emphasis should be put on the need for student support
services, representation and advocacy, and their importance in keeping students
at uni. The amenities and services fee that fund essential student support
services need to be compulsory in order to ensure students have the ability to
survive at University without drawing on taxpayer funds.[33]
1.27
The NUS recognises a distinction between student advocacy (which relates
to a particular student in a particular situation) and student representation,
which is related to students as a group.[34]
Student advocacy services are discussed below, while the issues surrounding
student representation will be discussed in the section following Student
Services and Amenities. Submissions from, for instance, CAPA and other
associations, indicate that student advocacy and student representation are
inextricably linked; for example, the University of Melbourne Graduate Student
Association (Uni of Melbourne GSA) stated that student representation
'is intrinsically related to the provision of an effective advocacy service.'[35]
Weakened advocacy services
1.28
Many submissions indicated the weakening of academic and welfare
advocacy services for students.[36]
Such services began to be introduced by student organisations during the 1970s
in response to increasing numbers of international students and students from
disadvantaged backgrounds. Following the introduction of VSU, advocacy services
have been generally reduced (in number and range of services), with some
services disappearing totally and others merging in order to reduce
administrative overheads.[37]
Many universities have taken over responsibility for the provision and funding
of advocacy services. In some cases, universities deliver the services
directly, often through a university-owned company, specifically set up to deal
with the delivery of student services.[38]
In other cases, the provision of these services may be contracted out to
commercial entities or delivered by a student organisation funded by the
university.
Conflict of interest
1.29
Several submissions stated that universities have a conflict of interest
when they take on responsibility for the provision of advocacy services, in
particular academic advocacy services.[39]
One function of such advocacy services is to resolve conflicts and
disagreements between students and university staff or administration; where a
university provides these services, it takes two roles – that of provider of
the services but also that of one of the parties involved in the disagreement. Students’
perceptions further complicate this issue because merely the perception of a
conflict of interest can be damaging.[40]
1.30
The NUS claimed that there has been an increase in micromanagement by
universities which are funding student organisations to deliver student
services; these universities have often drawn up detailed service level
agreements with the student organisations, an action which has ultimately
weakened the independent advocacy on these campuses.[41]
The independence of advocacy services can be compromised when such services are
not ‘free of the restrictions of university control'.[42]
1.31
Universities can apply 'undue influence' upon student organisations with
the threat of loss of funding; this is exemplified by what has come to be known
as 'cash for no comment', where Murdoch University attempted to prevent the
student guild from any further public criticism of the university. A copy of
the letter sent by Murdoch University to the student guild is included in the
submission from (the national office of) CAPA. The submission from CAPA Western
Region:
... is intended to highlight the importance of independent student
representation and advocacy, and the threat posed to such when student
organisations are dependent of universities’ discretion for funding. An
alarming exchange between the Murdoch administration and its Guild of Students
motivates our concerns.[43]
1.32
The national office of CAPA further noted that:
... correspondence from the University's Chancellor to the Guild
clearly threatened to withhold student funds collected under the proposed fee
unless the Guild conformed with the University's wishes.[44]
1.33
The bill and the Guidelines, as they stand, allow for such undue
influence. The majority of the submissions received from student organisations stated
that this potential, among other things, justified the need for the funds
collected from fees to be forwarded, at least in part, to student organisations
to ensure no conflict of interest or undue influence by university
administrations.
Independence of services
1.34
When university administrations are directly (or indirectly) responsible
for the delivery of advocacy services, students may not view such services as
fully independent.[45]
In this context, students can lose confidence in such services, resulting in
declining usage rates.
Advocates must be impartial and separate from the university if
students are to feel comfortable approaching them, and if they are to advise
and advocate for students’ interests in good faith. University employed
advocates face a disincentive to ‘advocate’ on the broader issues ... especially
where their employer may appear uninterested in hearing about problems elsewhere
in the university.[46]
1.35
Examples include the sharp reduction, following VSU, of students
accessing advocacy services which were offered at Charles Sturt University by
the university administration.
...no reasonable explanation has been offered for such a dramatic
snubbing of the service other than a complete loss of confidence in the
advocacy offered.[47]
1.36
Furthermore, this loss of confidence in student services and declining
use of student support services can ultimately lead to a decrease in overall
student numbers, as completion rates fall.[48]
'Arms length' approach
1.37
Some universities have acknowledged this conflict of interest.[49]
For example, the University of Adelaide, Deakin University and Swinburne
University of Technology stressed the importance of an 'arms length' approach
in the delivery of advocacy services.[50]
However, this assurance of independence, rather than true independence, may not
be adequate. Many submissions indicated that student organisations are
best-placed to deliver advocacy services because they can ensure true
independence; similarly, they can be a check and balance upon university
administrations and are in a better position to collect general information
about systemic issues.[51]
Furthermore, the independence of such student organisations, as providers of
advocacy services, can be compromised when universities provide the funding for
these services.[52]
Commercialisation of student services
1.38
The increasing commercialisation of university and student services was noted.[53]
It is simply not feasible for commercial entities to provide some of the
services required by students on campus due to the trading conditions unique to
university campuses.[54]
1.39
Many university services are required for long periods of the day during
the academic year but are either closed over the long holiday periods or hours of
operation are limited. Profits vary across the year due to fluctuating trade.[55]
As the users of services are mostly students, who generally have low incomes
and different needs compared with the general community, the customer-base
reduces the profitability of a business. Profit is the driver of business, not
the delivery or improvement of student services. This focus is at odds with the
efficient delivery of student services. It was claimed that at the University
of Western Sydney, for instance, the company set up by the university to
deliver some student services 'did what many businesses end up doing: it failed
to view the students of UWS as anything more than a source of income'.[56]
As a number of submissions have pointed out in similar circumstances, the
result is higher overheads for businesses, increased prices for consumers, generally
students, and limits to the range or quality of student services.[57]
1.40
Students cannot always rely on private sector services that are
available to the wider community. Some campuses are isolated from shopping or
other facilities. Accessing off-campus services can be inconvenient and costly.
Services provided by the private sector can also be more expensive and thus, beyond
the reach of many low income students.[58]
Student representation
1.41
The committee notes the government's intention that students should be
formally involved in decisions made by universities in regard to how money
levied through the new services and amenities scheme should be spent.[59]
The legislation makes it clear that universities must consult student bodies. The
question remains as to how this will work in practice,
1.42
The committee does not anticipate that this would necessarily result in
friction between students and vice-chancellors, but potential for dispute
exists, even in cases where student demands are entirely consistent with the Guidelines.
The committee notes the allusion to this in the submission from the Sydney
University Union, which made the following request:
We would like the Government to ensure that universities refrain
from micromanagement of these funds to avoid a culture of bureaucracy which
would inadvertently affect students as the key benefactors of this fee.[60]
1.43
The committee majority recognises the intent of the government's policy
as one of moving beyond the sterile debates that characterised the old VSU
legislation. Lessons have been learnt on all sides, and the urgent needs of
students and universities in regard to services and amenities have to be met.
The committee majority notes, however, that submissions from students that the
legislation in its current form deprives the student body of direct
responsibility for decisions about the provision of the services they require. The
committee points out that the funds to be expended are student funds, collected
from the students for amenities and services for the students themselves. In
many cases they will have borrowed money to hand over to university
administrators who may spend it in ways with which they may not agree. For all
practical purposes, universities can only be made 'accountable' in ways which
would satisfy an auditor. In other senses in which that term applies, they are
free to satisfy only themselves. The committee majority believes that the view
of the students, so long as they comply with the guidelines, should be binding.
1.44
Student representation was seriously degraded by the advent of VSU. A
number of student representative bodies merged or disappeared completely
following the introduction of VSU.[61]
The NUS pointed out to the committee that this bill will do nothing to reverse
this decline in the influence of student representative bodies; it will more
likely accelerate it.
... we are disappointed by this legislation. Student
representation has been hit hardest by the introduction of VSU. This new
law will not be good enough to restore the student voice on campus. It has long
been our position that students should decide how their money is spent on
campus and to politically organise to activate those views. They will not have
the ability under the new legislation to do this. In fact, this law may act as
a disincentive to voluntary membership on campus—voluntary membership
that could fund an independent voice.[62]
1.45
CAPA noted that staff and resources in these representative bodies
declined to a large extent and that this was particularly true in relation to
postgraduate students.[63]
In evidence to the committee, CAPA also expressed concern about the processes
of consultation which the universities would use to ascertain student
requirements for particular services. It was pointed out that
government–imposed changes to university boards of management precluded
ex-officio student appointments, yet such people were an essential part of the
process which is proposed in this bill. CAPA asked:
... is the university getting value for money for those
appointments? ... I mean value for money in terms of student participation in
university decision making. I think it is a real danger that, if left up to the
university entirely, these kinds of representative appointments will be
entirely unrepresentative. You will just have a random student plonked on a
committee, with limited or no ability to engage with the student population broadly
and no resources at all to develop an informed opinion. That is why we stress
in our submission there is a link between access to independent advocacy and
student representation.[64]
1.46
The same complications that arise from conflicts of interest in the
delivery of student advocacy services can also apply to student representation.
This is because effective student representation requires independent student
bodies which are free to speak out on relevant issues and to be critical of
universities where necessary.[65]
Moreover, student representation and student advocacy are closely linked and
are maximally effective when combined. Student representation is one method of
quality assurance for both students and university administrations.
Effective student representation is broadly informed by academic
advocacy 'caseload' trends ... Institutions have an interest in ensuring the link
between academic advocacy and independent representation is maintained,
especially if they are to genuinely embrace the notion of continuous monitoring
and improvement of quality (as they are often heard to profess when the
Auditors come to visit).[66]
1.47
Some student organisations indicated that the expenses for student
representation, including national representation, should be borne by universities,
noting that the protocols for representation and advocacy indicate that
universities must offer students opportunities for student representation.[67]
These protocols are discussed further in the Guidelines section below. Similarly,
others advocated that the costs of such representation be covered by the funds
collected from the student services and amenities fee.[68]
1.48
Student representation is an important voice for all university
students. It has been severely undermined by VSU and needs to be re-established
as a priority. It is important that student views and needs are considered in
university processes and decisions. The committee majority agrees that democratic
student representation is one of the democratic rights that 'underpin our
nation and community'.[69]
This should be properly reflected in the legislation, and in its consideration
of the bill the Parliament should trust to the processes of democracy rather
than to bureaucratic processes to satisfy the needs of the university
community. The committee majority acknowledges that these processes may
occasionally be messy and the outcomes contestable: rather like the processes
of government at the national level.
Recommendation
1.49
The committee majority recommends that universities, in taking
responsibility for the management of the fee levy, be required to accept the
advice of student representative bodies in regard to expenditure priorities and
disbursement of funds, as determined by the student bodies and insofar as
student body determinations comply with the Guidelines.
International students
1.50
A significant number of university students in Australia today are full
fee-paying international students. They bring significant revenue into Australia.
One witness, the National Liaison Committee for International Students (NLC),
stated that approximately 25 per cent of public education institution funding
comes from international students' fees. As the NLC noted in its submission:
with international education contributing $13.7 billion to the
Australian economy last financial year, it has now become the largest service
export for Australia. Particularly in this current global financial crisis,
increasing Overseas Students’ fees will decrease Australia’s competitiveness in
the international education market.[70]
1.51
The NLC believed that international students should be exempted from a
student services and amenities fee because they already pay full fees. In its
written submission, the NLC claimed that international students appeared to be
subsidising campus services and amenities for all students because many of
these services had not disappeared after VSU; the NLC argued that, as
international students were still paying for services and amenities while
domestic students were not, it was international students' fees which were
funding the ongoing services and amenities available on university campuses.[71]
1.52
This line of argument disregards the redirection of funding away from
the core university areas of teaching and research. Nor does it take into
account the sometimes considerable reserves that student organisations drew
upon in order to continue much-needed student services following the
introduction of VSU.
1.53
In oral evidence, the NLC stated that international students want
clarification on whether they are being charged services and amenities fees
twice; this was referred to as 'double dipping.' CAPA also notes that
universities can currently charge international students a compulsory amenities
fee and often do so.[72]
To end this practice, if it is indeed occurring, the NLC recommended that all
fees charged to international students be itemised so that the intended
purposes of the different subcomponents of fees are clear. The committee
requested further information from the Department of Education, Employment and
Workplace Relations regarding this issue. In response, the department noted
that universities can charge tuition fees which include the costs of providing
the services that are required under the Education Services for Overseas
Students Act. However, the department assured the committee that there is no
duplication of services and amenities fees for international students, and
denied that there is any provision in the bill which would result in an
international student paying two sets of service and amenities fees. unknown15unknown1The act
currently prohibits charging any student, including an overseas student, a
compulsory fee for non-academic service. As a DEEWR official explained:
unknown15unknown1The act provides
that a provider can include within the tuition fee for an overseas student the
costs of the provider meeting their obligations under the Education Services
for Overseas Students Act. So the cost of providing the things that have to be
provided under the national code under that act can be bundled into the tuition
fee ... 1000015CHAIR0unknown15unknown1the national
code is largely about providing access to services rather than providing the
services themselves. In the guidelines for the fee, under this bill, we say
that in respect of special services for overseas students they have to be over
and above what is required under the national code.[73]
1.54
Two submissions indicated that international students are not receiving
value for money by way of specialised student services of the kind required by
foreign students, particularly in view of the high fees they are paying. NLC noted
that there are insufficient student services specifically aimed at the needs of
overseas students and that these services are becoming harder to access. NLC
believed there is no justification for another fee in addition to what
international students are already paying[74]
and stated:
NLC can see no reason to justify the payment of additional service
fees outside of the ESOS Act, when the ESOS Act defines that International
Students are already paying for their own services.[75]
1.55
The committee is concerned that these complaints may lead to a
significant decline in the numbers of overseas students who choose to study
here. Evidence to the committee also indicates that many foreign students
suffer severe depression while studying in this country, and are in need of
strong support groups and counselling.[76]
The committee recommends that part of the student services and amenities fees
which are collected from overseas students is directed towards international
student organisations to fund student services which are for the benefit of
international students.
1.56
Australia has much to gain from encouraging international students to
study here, not just financially but culturally also. In order to be an
attractive option for overseas students, Australian universities must have
well-developed and accessible student services and amenities.
Institutions and government also have an interest in maintaining
a quality student experience, not least in ensuring that our universities
remain attractive destinations for prospective students from overseas. If we
want to sustain a world class higher education system, we need to be clear that
world class student support services and representation form part of that goal.[77]
1.57
The committee majority believes that the needs of international students
should be taken into account by the wider student community, of which they are
part. This is a matter for the student bodies themselves, but ought to be a
permanent agenda item in consultations between vice-chancellors and student
bodies.
Regional universities
1.58
A number of submissions indicated that the adverse effects of VSU have
been felt more strongly at rural and outer metropolitan university campuses
than at inner metropolitan campuses.[78]
For instance, the NUS cited the impact upon the various campuses of Royal
Melbourne Institute of Technology.
The impact of VSU continue[s] to be hardest felt on the smaller
outer suburban campuses at Bundoora and on the TAFE campuses, where services have
been drastically reduced.[79]
1.59
Yet, as indicated in a joint submission from the Vice President of the Student
Representative Council of Charles Sturt University, Bathurst, and a student
member of the Charles Sturt University Council, all university students have
right of access to student services and amenities of a relatively uniform
standard, regardless of the location of the universities that those students
attend.[80]
1.60
Smaller campuses have fewer students and ultimately, less funding. The NUS
notes that there are large differences between the amounts of discretionary
funding available in small, regional universities compared with, for example,
the Group of Eight universities. 'This builds further structural inequalities
and disadvantages into the higher education system.'[81]
1.61
In addition, the services available at small, regional universities are usually
less extensive than those available in larger metropolitan universities. For instance,
regional campuses generally have fewer sporting facilities compared with larger
universities.[82]
It can also be more expensive to provide student services on regional campuses
but there is often more need for such services, given the more remote locations
or limited services available off-campus in regional centres. Student
organisations may reduce their costs by linking for-profit and not-for-profit
services. A further complication affecting regional campuses is that student organisations
(or university administrations) have fewer opportunities to link these
different kinds of services. For these reasons, the NUS believed that student
services and amenities on regional campuses are not sustainable without subsidy.
Varying fee levels
1.62
Proponents of VSU have always claimed that particular groups of student
have fewer opportunities to access on-campus student services and amenities and
that it would be inequitable for such students to be forced to pay for these
services.[83]
Such groups include external students, part-time students and mature age
students, all of whom may not spend significant amounts of time at university.
1.63
The committee majority believes that one option to address this problem
is to set more than one level of fee to be charged. The level of fee could be
based upon the status of a student, whether external or part-time, or some
other category. This model was operational at the University of New England
before VSU was introduced. Furthermore, this flexible model is more suited to
the changing demographics of university students.[84]
1.64
In accordance with the principles of university autonomy, it should be
the university administration's responsibility to set what level of fee each
student should justifiably be charged. The university should also be free to
adjust the level of the fees where it feels it is necessary, according to the
use of services and amenities by individual students.
Guidelines
1.65
The bill stipulates that funds from the collection of a student
services and amenities fee may not be directed towards activities such as the
support of political parties or support for the election of a person to
Commonwealth, state (or territory) or local governments.
1.66
Following referral of the bill to the Senate for inquiry, the government
released more detailed draft guidelines, comprising the Student Services and
Amenities Fee Guidelines and the Student Services, Amenities,
Representation and Advocacy Guidelines (detailing the National Student
Representation and Advocacy Protocols and the National Access to
Services Benchmarks). Copies of these documents can be found in Appendix 3.
The Guidelines will be tabled as a disallowable instrument once the
bill has passed.
1.67
The draft Guidelines indicate, among other things, the particular
types of services and amenities for which universities may charge a student
services and amenities fee. The government has also set out minimum standards
with which universities receiving Commonwealth grant scheme funding must comply
by 2010. The benchmarks which are set out in the Guidelines bring a
balance to the service provision requirements for both international and
domestic students. The Hon Kate Ellis MP, Minister for Youth, noted that:
...for the first time universities will be required to implement
National Access to Services Benchmarks for all domestic Australian students –
in line with current Benchmarks that already exist for our international
students.[85]
1.68
La Trobe University Students' Representative Council (La Trobe
University SRC) welcomed the introduction of minimum standards relating to
student advocacy and representation, noting the absence of any such national standards
previously. On the other hand, students from Charles Sturt University believed
that the national benchmarks in student service provision were the most
exciting development to come from the review of the impact of VSU.[86]
1.69
Some submissions indicated possible shortcomings in the guidelines and,
in some cases, submissions included suggestions for improving the guidelines. The
La Trobe University SRC cautioned that the protocols were quite broad and that
there would be variations in interpretation of them across institutions. Similarly,
the protocols fail to provide for adequate student representation because they
do not require those universities currently without student organisations to
create such bodies. The University of Melbourne GSA pointed out a possible
discrepancy in the guidelines; that is, while universities are required to
support and provide opportunities for student representation, there is no
requirement for universities to fund such representation. In relation to this
issue, La Trobe SRC claimed that:
... whilst the protocols fail in their attempt to ensure adequate
representation for students[,] the guidelines are much more concerning in that
they outlaw adequate student representation from being funded by the proposed
$250 student services fee. ... This means that all the government claims to
wanting to ensure adequate student representation are hollow.[87]
1.70
The committee majority assumes that there will be continued consultation
about refinements to the Guidelines in the light of experience. This
committee will take a continued interest in the scrutiny of the Guidelines.
Conclusion
1.71
There is strong support from universities and students of the need for a
student services and amenities fee to revitalise student services and amenities
and reverse the destructive effects of VSU. The committee majority notes the
strong comments that the Vice-Chancellor of Monash University, Professor
Richard Larkins, made at a universities conference on 4 March 2009, in which he
described the decision to abolish compulsory fees as 'outrageous' and the worst
example of government intervention into university autonomy he had seen. Professor
Larkins explained that VSU directly impaired the ability of universities to
deliver quality education and research because of the need to divert funding which
would otherwise be allocated for teaching and research.[88]
The committee majority sees no alternative but to reverse this absurd
situation, which was foreseen by all objective observers and vice-chancellors.
1.72
The committee majority supports this bill, with caveats which are
expressed in its recommendation. It agrees with the cap on the service levy,
which is generally affordable, but will discourage expenditure on amenities
like ski lodges which are beyond the means of most students to use. Finally,
the committee majority sees the challenge of implementation to lie in the
processes of consultation between university administrators and student bodies.
In the light of charges of excessive managerialism which were justifiably made
against successive Coalition education ministers in their treatment of
universities, it trusts that similar excesses will not be observed in the way
universities deal with student representative bodies in decisions about the
provision of services and amenities.
Senator Gavin Marshall
Chair
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page