Coalition Senators' Dissenting Report
1. Executive Summary
1.1
This Bill represents a return to
compulsory fees being levied on university students for non-academic purposes.
It is another in a long line of broken election promises from the Labor
Government.
1.2
The previous government enacted the Higher Education Support Amendment
(Abolition of Up-Front Compulsory Student Union Fees) Act 2005 to relieve
university students of the financial burden of upfront amenities fees and the
compulsion to join a student union. Previously, students were forced to fund
student unions and services irrespective of whether they wished to join the
union, or use the services provided.
1.3
This Bill represents a backward
step in that it:
-
Reintroduces
compulsory student unionism through students being forced to fund the
activities of student unions;
-
Slugs
students with a compulsory fee regardless of their need or even ability to
access the services it purportedly funds, and regardless of their means;
-
Almost
certainly ensures the return of compulsory levies funding and supporting
marginal and extreme political activities.
2. Labor’s broken promise
2.1
In her Second Reading speech on the Higher Education Legislation Amendment
(Student Services and Amenities, and other measures) Bill 2009 the Minister
for Youth, the Hon Kate Ellis MP, claimed that the government was delivering on
an election commitment to “rebuild important university student services and
to also ensure that students have representation on campus” through reintroducing
compulsory non-academic fees.
2.2
The Minister is using a selective version of the history on this matter as the
introduction of this legislation represents the clear breach of a Labor
commitment.
2.3
Labor’s election promise was both in principle and in detail – rejecting both
the reintroduction of non-academic fees as well as any form of loans scheme to
fund them. The then Shadow Minister for Education and Training Stephen Smith MP
was explicit about this on 22 May 2007:
"... I'm not considering a compulsory
HECS-style arrangement and the whole basis of the approach is one of a
voluntary approach. So I am not contemplating a compulsory amenities fee."[1]
2.4
This legislation breaches both of these election commitments. The fee outlined
in the Bill will be dedicated to
non-academic services, it will be universal and compulsory, and it will be paid
off in the very ‘HECS style’ arrangement that Mr Smith had explicitly ruled out.
2.5
This legislation therefore represents a clear and unambiguous breach of a
specific election commitment by the Labor Party.
3. Slugging students
3.1
This legislation represents a substantial increase to students of the cost of
undertaking a course of higher education.
3.2
As the fee is indexed along with accumulated loans, it increases in nominal
value and adds additional time to the period taken to repay student loans.
3.3
If, as expected, Universities levy the full $250 fee allowed by the Bill, it will likely
represent nearly $1000 additional for the shortest 3 year degree course. For a
more expensive 5 year degree, the total cost of the fees when deferred
approaches $2000.
4. No evidence of need
4.1
The government has not demonstrated a need to reintroduce compulsory fees for
non-academic services. Students have neither clamoured for the reintroduction
of compulsory fees nor turned away from Universities on the account of the
purported decline in services since the introduction of VSU.
4.2
The committee heard evidence from the University of Queensland Union that student bodies have been able to
continue to provide services to students since the abolition of up-front fees
in 2005.
Mr
Young—In short,
instead of shrivelling and dying, as was predicted by those with vested
interests, we have actually increased the services that we offer and are
flourishing under a VSU environment... More importantly, it is also in the
interests of students, because they have the opportunity to enjoy a vibrant
campus culture as well as representation without the need to be slugged $250 for
it.
The
introduction of voluntary student unionism has forced student bodies to provide
a more efficient and attractive service to students in order to attract and
increase membership.
4.3
Coalition Senators believe that the failure of some organisations to adapt
should not be seen as a failure of VSU, rather it is a failure of the
organisation to adapt to the need to attract students’ support. Again, this was
supported by the experience of the University of Queensland Union:
Mr
Young—The fact of the
matter remains: many student union organisations throughout Australia have
failed to address the underlying inefficiencies in their own organisations,
have failed to listen adequately to what students want—and this is reflected in
the very low voter turnout and membership rates of these organisations—and have
lacked the entrepreneurial and hardworking spirit to turn things around. We are
now in a situation where we can do one of two things: we can force students to
cough up $200 and endorse the poor and wasteful management that has existed and
still exists within student organisations, or we can go back to a system that
works and is fair to students. Again, I view the former to be in the interests
of student unions and the NUS but definitely not in interests of
students in general.
4.4
Coalition Senators believe that non-academic services provided on campus should
be funded by students who choose to and are able to utilise them and that VSU
need not to threaten the provision of such services; indeed properly managed it
will make them more responsive to students’ needs.
4.5
Where there is a shortfall in revenue for the provision of these services, the
Coalition believes that there is no justification to make this up by levying all
students, including those who do not, or cannot use these facilities. This was
supported by evidence tendered by the UQ Union.
Mr Young—If the university wants to have services
and amenities to attract more students to that campus, they really should fund
it themselves.
4.6
Coalition Senators believe that if we can trust students to choose the
university course they undertake and their study and work arrangements, it is
ridiculous to argue that they are incapable of choosing which non-academic
services they need to access and make the choice accordingly.
4.7
Furthermore, doubt remains as to the ability of the great bulk of students to
access the services funded from the fees that this Bill will see levied. It
would be unfair to levy all students a fee to subsidise facilities or services
that were incapable of actually being accessed by the great bulk of students.
Such
services or facilities might include exclusive sports facilities or services
that are tightly rationed or limited in terms of the numbers of students who
may access them.
5. Undermining Freedom of
Association
5.1
Coalition Senators recognise that this Bill provides only for fees to be levied by
Universities. However, this does not represent a significant change from that
which was in place prior to the introduction of VSU and it is misleading to
claim otherwise.
5.2
In most cases prior to 2005, non-academic fees were similarly levied by the
institution – with funds then being passed onto a student union, guild or
association.
5.3
This legislation does nothing to limit funds being passed on in this way. It
simply seeks to limit the purposes for which fees may be levied.
5.4
[This represents a clear breach of the commitment to freedom of association.
Students might not be actually forced to formally join a student association in
order to attend university, but they still have to pay a compulsory fee, which
a University then passes to a student association. It is farcical to argue
that students are thus not forced to support a union regardless of their
wishes.]
5.5
The attempt by the Government and various vested interests to claim this Bill represents a radical
change from the administrative arrangements that existed prior to VSU is
sophistry aimed at concealing the truth – students will once again be required
to contribute to the activities of student unions.
6. Inadequate protection
against political activity
6.1
This key principle of freedom of association is further threatened by the Bill’s inadequate
protections against the collected monies being used to support political
activity.
6.2
While both the Bill and the Student Services and Amenities Guidelines, prohibit
the spending of monies collected from the fee ‘to provide support to a
political party or to support a candidate for political office’[2]
this does nothing to limit the use of the fees for other political
activities or the revenues gained from the services supported by the fees being
used on activities that are partisan in nature.
6.3
Although institutions and other entities that receive compulsory non-academic
fee funds from the institution will be restricted from directly funding
political parties or candidates for public office, funding to other campaigns
of a political nature by third-parties that casually assist particular parties
or candidates will still be permissible.
6.4
Under what has been described as the former Victorian model, compulsory
non-academic fees could not be used to fund the National Union of Students, but
cross-subsidisation of commercial trading by student unions could result in revenues
from ‘subsidised’ services ending up in the hands of overtly political
organisations such as the National Union of Students.
6.5
Student unions will inevitably find ways to bypass the guidelines. Therefore
the only way to prevent the unions from misusing the compulsorily acquired fees
is to deny these fees to the unions altogether.
6.6
A number of the areas of the Guidelines lack sufficient specific detail to have
confidence in them preventing inappropriate use of compulsory fees. The
specific example of funding for legal services was raised during the hearings
of the Committee:
Senator
RYAN—I recall an incident quite a while ago
where students held a protest. It reached a degree of violence, the police
intervened and several students were arrested and charged. The student union
legal services funded their defence or contributed to the funding of their
defence. There is no restriction whatever on how these legal services can be
used; it is just the provision of legal services, isn’t it?
unknown4unknown1Mr Manns [representing
DEEWR]—There is no
further specification than is proposed there.
6.7
The Guidelines as released by the Department do not prevent compulsory fees
being used for political purposes, although they propose restrictions on
partisan activities.
6.8
Coalition Senators believe that both the Bill and the Guidelines fail to protect the basic
right of freedom of association in that students will again be compelled to
fund political activities through compulsory non-academic fees.
7. Inadequate mechanisms for
students to scrutinise expenditure
7.1
Coalition Senators are also concerned that there is no provision for students
to scrutinise those activities for which they are being compulsorily levied
fees.
7.2
The National Student Representation and Advocacy Protocols do not contain any
detailed requirements for student organisations funded out of the compulsory
fee to be transparent.
7.3
Having no formal mechanisms in place to bring political expenditure to the attention
of the minister gives students, particularly politically marginalised students,
very little power to ensure political expenditure does not occur.
7.4 In the hearing, President of the National Union of Students David Barrow
made it clear that students would not have a say in how the compulsorily
acquired money would be spent.
Senator
CROSSIN—I see. How
will students guarantee that the moneys are well spent under this legislation?
Mr Barrow—That is our argument—that is, that
students have no guarantee. If students do not have control of the funds then
there is no guarantee that they will be spent wisely.
7.5
Coalition Senators agree with the sentiment expressed above – but believe that
students should be viewed and treated as individuals and continue to be able to
make their own, individual decisions about how their money is spent.
7.6
Under the proposed regime, the Minister is the only person with ability to
police the Student Services and Amenities Guidelines and would be responsible
for punishing institutions that fund activities outside the guidelines.
7.7
The discretionary power afforded to the Minister would make the ban on partisan
political expenditure dependant on the Minister’s whim.
7.8
The proposed regime does not guarantee that political expenditure will be
visible, meaning students have little scope to hold their unions to account or
ascertain what their compulsorily acquired fees will be spent on.
8. Labor cannot be trusted
8.1
In her second reading speech the Minister stated that “universities that
choose to levy a fee will be expected to consult with students on the nature of
the service and amenities and enhanced advocacy that the fee would support.”[3]
8.2
Coalition Senators have concerns about the ambiguity of this proposal. At no
point in the guidelines does the Minister clarify which organisation or
individuals will be consulted. This has the potential to lead to universities
consulting small groups with pecuniary interests, with the great majority of
students having no voice.
8.3
In a media release on 3
November 2008
the Minister said “The Rudd Government will continue to work in partnership
with universities and students.”[4]
What this is likely to mean is that universities and those with vested
interests in the fees, for example institutions, students organisations and
student unions, will be consulted but the majority of students will have no
say.
8.4
Coalition Senators believe that the Government has only consulted a narrow
range of views and interests in making the decision to re-institute compulsory
non-academic fees. This is shown by the Australian Democrats Youth Poll 2008
which stated that 59% of students surveyed believed compulsory fees should not
be reintroduced.[5]
8.5
There are also concerns about the use of guidelines rather than legislation to
provide the protections the Minister has outlined. The Government and some
groups in favour of the legislation argue that the guidelines will provide
robust protection against student money being used for political purposes.
8.6
These guidelines are easily changed and this protection can be removed at the
Minister’s prerogative. Under the previous compulsory fee regime the National
Union of Students spent more than $250,000 on political campaigns in the period
leading up to the 2004 election.[6]
It is impossible under a compulsory fee regime, regardless of the guidelines,
to protect against students’ money being used in this manner.
9. Conclusion
9.1
As a result of the introduction of Voluntary Student Unionism by the previous
government, those organisations which were unable to meet the needs of students
declined in membership. It is ironic that the current government seeks to
reintroduce legislation to once again force students to fund inefficient and
unresponsive organisations they would not otherwise join or support with their
monies.
9.2
The introduction of VSU has not seen a collapse in student services or life on
campus. It is patronising in the extreme to assume that students need a student
union to enjoy a full university experience.
9.3
This Bill represents an attempt
by vested interests to once again be able to rely on the force of law to
compulsorily collect $250 million from Australian students, to fund services
and activities that students themselves will have no say over.
9.4
Furthermore, it represents a clear and unambiguous breach of a specific
commitment by the Labor Party.
Recommendation
Coalition
Senators recommend that the Bill
be rejected.
Senator
Gary Humphries
Deputy
Chair
Senator Scott Ryan
Senator Michaelia Cash
Senator
Mary Jo Fisher
Senator Brett Mason
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page