Prepared by
the Research Department,
Students’
Representative
Council
University of Sydney
March 2001

Submission to the Senate Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education References Committee
The Capacity Of Public Universities To Meet Australia’s Higher Education Needs.

Introduction
This submission will demonstrate the current lack of ability that public universities have in meeting Australia’s higher education needs.  It will use theoretical, case study and anecdotal evidence to support this claim.  We will focus primarily on the University of Sydney, however, some of the theories and experiences contained in this submission are able to be applied to other university campuses.  If required a member of the Research Department of the Students’ Representative Council of the University of Sydney will be happy to attend the Senate’s hearing to further explain our position.

(A) The Adequacy Of Current Funding Arrangements
i.	the capacity of universities to manage and serve increasing demand,
ii.	institutional autonomy and flexibility, and
iii.	the quality and diversity of teaching and research;

The Public University And Marketisation
Marketisation is the introduction or extension of forms of the competitive economic market and is central to the ‘reforms’ of the public sector in Australia in the 1980’s and 1990’s. (Marginson S.  “Competition and contestability in Australian higher education 1987-1997”  Australian Universities Review  NTEU. Melbourne 1/1997b: 6)

At the University of Sydney such forms have included:	
•	managerialism and staff restructuring, 
•	commercialisation,
•	internationalisation,
•	user pays mechanisms, 
•	moves towards corporatisation, and
•	suggestions of outright privatisation.

Various combinations of these elements have been applied throughout the entire Higher Education System. 

Central to these changes is the changed financial and funding environment Universities have faced as government funding levels per student have dramatically declined.

The spread of marketisation at the University of Sydney is uneven and idiosyncratic. However there is a clear pattern of change in which the public nature of the University is diminished as it shifts and hunts for private funding. Jane Nicholls has been arguing for some time that we need to examine what it means to call a university a ‘public institution’. (Nicholls J. 'Privatisation and the new landscape in tertiary education: Some issues' Unpublished paper for NTEU National Council Meeting. 1997) At minimum marketisation narrows the educational priorities of universities. 

Simon Marginson uses the metaphor of an ‘upward spiral of market formation’ to describe the dynamics of marketisation. Each element of marketisation reinforces each other so that the ‘structures of market competition and the attitudes and values needed to make competition work, tend to catalyse each other.’ (Marginson S 1997 as above) Sydney University’s particular and peculiar culture and history complicate this picture though generally not in progressive ways.

Alternative Conceptions of the Public University
Democratic public control is important for the public interest and collective benefit of education and research. Marketisation reduces collective public control. Public control can be exercised through State regulation, funding or provision. Some forms of State regulation have increased in recent years while overall per capita funding has substantially decreased. Regulation in areas such as equity and rights is useful but cannot replace State provision and public funding. The proportion of State funding in University budgets has dropped to the point where Australian higher education cannot be described as simply State provision. Additional marginal State funding incentives still remain important and have some leverage in this climate but are not adequate replacements for full funding. The battle for public provision is not lost as it lies within the power of government to provide adequate funding if it has the political will. 

Public control is complicated by issues of autonomy. Limited institutional autonomy allows for different institutions to meet the needs of different ‘communities' but overall they should remain under public control. Autonomy is important not to protect institutions, but to protect the rights of staff and students within the institution to speak openly and challenge powerful interest in society when they believe this is right.

Democratic (staff and student) participation in institutional governance extends the idea of public control beyond the State, and it needs to be extended. The limited participation that currently exists is under attack. 

Public accountability is important for transparency, open and ethical decision making and to stop conflicts of interest and the potential for corruption. There is a long standing cultural resistance in higher education to public sector accountability mechanisms such as Freedom of Information, formal protection of privacy, equal opportunity and discrimination law, and Ombudsman and Auditor General review. There is increasing 'economic' resistance to revealing 'commercial in confidence' information. The effect of marketisation is to reduce the public accountability of institutions. The Vice Chancellor of Melbourne University has in fact argued for privatisation (via Melbourne University Private) specifically to reduce that University's accountability requirements. 

The nature of market relations highlight structures of social relations between all those that participate in higher education: between teachers and students, between student and student, and between institutions.  Market relations promote competition, commodification, differentiation, the empowering of some (individuals or institutions) and the disadvantaging of others through the drive for 'positional goods'.   (Marginson S. 1997 as above). Other co-operative forms of relations are possible, more productive and more desirable. 

The social values of the market are at best those of equal opportunity. Alternative, more progressive, social values look at equal outcomes. To create socially just education equal outcomes needs to be our goal. Some current public policy, which is situated between these positions, tries to address equity, access and successful completion for 'disadvantaged' students and regional disadvantage at an institutional level. However inadequate such ‘mixed economy' policies are in practice, they represent important values that are also under challenge by market values. 

A final criterion for consideration is the social role of universities in the production and transmission of knowledge. This takes in the wide spectrum of issues such as the ownership and control of knowledge (Intellectual Property) and a concern for the quality and standards of education. A deeper analysis of the social role of universities considers the power structures of class, gender and race that in turn structure education and research. Marketisation has negative impacts in all these areas. Socially responsible education and research are vital for a democratic and just society.

The Retreat from Public Funding
Public funding of Universities is in retreat. 

At the University of Sydney Commonwealth and State Government funding averaged 66% of total revenue from 1992-1995. In 1996 this declined to 62% of total revenue and from 1997 - 1999 it has averaged 54% (possibly down to 50 % in 1999 depending on superannuation adjustments).
(Source: the University Of Sydney, Annual Reports 1992-1999)

These numbers are reflected in the OECD data cited in the NTEU Audit of Higher Education document distributed last year (p10). The proportion of funding from public sources across the whole tertiary education sector for 1997 was around 58 %. This was the 4th lowest in the OECD with only the United States, Japan and Korea having lower public contributions. The OECD average is around 75%.
(Source: OECD Education at a Glance - 2000 edition, p67 table B2.1)

The AVCC in its Key Statistics on Universities July 2000 document  (p9) cites an even lower number of Commonwealth and State Government funding as 54.9 % of total revenue in 1997 and 51.9 % of total revenue in 1998.
(Source:DETYA Selected Higher Education Finance statistics) 

Both the NTEU and the AVCC have documented in much more detail the decline in funding per student [e.g the AVCC (p2) notes that funding per actual EFTSU has declined by 9.2 % since 1988] so we will not comment further. 

What is the impact of this retreat? The most significant is in the decline of teaching, which we document further below.

The Attack On Teaching And The Humanities
Even in a relatively privileged institution such as Sydney University the cuts to teaching staff across the University in the last decade have been significant.  A core faculty such as Science have had its student number s (EFTSU) increased by 596 (12%) between 1990 and 2000 while staff numbers went down 44.7 by  (11%).  In this time student staff ratios have risen from 12.5 to 15.9.

The Arts faculty has undergone even more drastic increases in student numbers and reductions in staff, so much so that it could be described as an attack on the Humanities. An attack reflected in other institutions such as Monash.

Student numbers in the Arts faculty increased by 814 (20%) between 1990 and 2000 while (full -time equivalent) staff numbers went down 64.7 by  (20%).  In this time student staff ratios have risen from 12.6 to 19.3. This is has arisen not by dramatic sackings but through thorough going and consistently applied 'wastage', with staff not being replaced in anything like the numbers in which they retire or take redundancy packages.

A real feel for the impact of these cuts can best be gauged by looking at staff cuts within core disciplines / Departments. For example from 1990 to 2000 the number of teaching staff (Full Time Equivalent Academic Staff) in:
•	Philosophy has dropped by 4.1 (from 19 in 1990 to 14.9 in 2000 or  22%), 
•	Anthropology has dropped by 6.3 (from 21.5 to 15.2 or  29%), 
•	English has dropped by 20 (from 54.4 to 34.3 or 37%) 
•	History has dropped by 22 (from 46.8 to 24.8 or 47%). 
(Source: The University of Sydney Statistics 1990: 175, 177 and The University of Sydney Statistics 2000: 57, 58)

It is not clear from the statistical data but these figures may in fact be even worse than stated. For example over-enrolled (and therefore not fully funded) students place greater demands on Departments and real staff student ratios. Over-enrolment occurs as university administration claw desperately for additional 'discounted' government income - at the expense of staff conditions and the quality of teaching. As a result key learning needs for students, such as an ability to participate in discussion and to receive detailed feedback on assessment, suffer. 

There is a presumption within the University administration that Arts should respond to the market signals to find significant alternative funding sources. For Arts any half way appropriate sources of external funding are very limited. Even when they are available the return on the effort required to get these market sources of funding is minimal or not cost efficient. Following the cue from Canberra, the University administration sets its internal university funding formula in a way that leads to the bizarre situation of Arts continually running a multi - million dollar ‘deficit'.

Continued cuts are being made. We refer the Committee to the article in the Higher Education Supplement (p35) of the Australian dated 14/3/01 titled 'Cuts to hit Sydney arts jobs, courses.' (Attached)  This describes the latest round of 'voluntary' redundancies the Arts faculty at Sydney University is undergoing. At least 16 more academic staff are to be lost in a round in which the Vice Chancellor is aiming for 40 redundancies. Staff student ratios are now up even further particularly in some Departments.

Over-Enrolments
We would argue that the University's decision to push the level of over-enrolments also be subject to cost benefit analysis. 

It appears from the Budget documentation that this over-enrolment has continued for some years and at quite high levels. Indeed Arts, Economics and Health Sciences "took significant extra undergraduate load at the request of the University [management] in 1998" (Budget Supporting Documents p104). The Budget Statement indicates a 10-11% overload for which the Government pays a marginal and discounted rate of $2517 per EFSTU. (p4, p10). In some courses therefore the Government is making a 'profit' out of students as they are paying a higher HECS fee than the University receives in disbursements. We also understand that over-enrolment payment funding is in fact not forwarded by the Government until May of the following year.

This relatively small amount of money comes at considerable costs in terms of stress on the capacity of Departments and Faculties and the impact on the quality of education that all students receive. We are not arguing that the University should be elitist and deliberately limit places. Rather we feel that where capacity for increased enrolments exists it should be filled in a planned way through the Profile negotiations between the University and Government.

Providing for a Growing and Diverse Student Population
The University has demonstrated an inability to manage or serve the increasing demand, using a panic-like approach to the rising student numbers and the falling levels of public funding.  This has been in a number of ways.

The use of flexible delivery of courses has increased despite the knowledge of its shortfalls.  That is, flexible delivery or teaching through computers takes away the essential face-to-face component of education.  Students do not learn from their fellow students but rather only know them in an adversarial way.  Students who are reluctant, unable or otherwise unlikely to have access to computers are disadvantaged to those with the resources and the knowledge and/or confidence to use computers.  This includes people with disabilities or special needs, people who do not own their own computer and struggle to afford the increased price of computer access on campus, and people who need to access the campus computers after hours but are not able to because of the limited opening hours of the computer laboratories.

The reduction in the number of tutorials particularly for first year students, for example, in the Faculty of Nursing, the School of Art History and Theory and the Department of Archaeology, has meant that students are missing out on necessary face-to-face teaching.

The limited availability of places to compulsory first year subjects restricts not only the choices available to students, but can also hinder their ability to complete the compulsory schedule of study.  For example, Sociology, is a compulsory first year subject for all Social Work students.  There are limited places available, which means that students are admitted to the subject based on their UAI score (having a UAI that is high enough to get into the Social Work course may not be high enough to enable you to do the subject) or their ability and willingness to pay the up front tuition fee.

Subjects available to third year Political Economy students have been severely reduced.  Co-incidentally these same subjects are offered as fee-paying postgraduate subjects.  Students in parts of this course have also lost all of their tutorials in lieu of seminars.  That is effectively a tutorial with about 150 people.  This robs students of the ability to participate in meaningful discussions and debates, pushing back their development of critical thought and analysis.

Some courses have reduced the number of individual assessments.  For example, Architecture now only has group project work to reduce the amount of marking required.  This change coincided with the removal of all assistant lecturers.

The Difficulty of Providing Quality Education
The University management has shifted the onus of delivering a good quality education onto the academics themselves.  Their response to that has at times adversely affected their ability to be good educators and consequently this has led to students receiving a substandard tertiary education.  

An increase in the amount of lecture time required for academics has necessarily led to a decrease in the amount of consultation and research time.  The increased casualisation of academics has compounded this situation.  This is particularly alarming when you consider that academics are meant to use non-semester times (eg, the summer holidays) for planning of courses and conducting research.

The increased casualisation of academics has also caused disinterest in some lecturers to set reasonably sized regular assessments or supplementary examinations or examinations requiring special conditions (eg, students with special needs or disability).  This was clearly demonstrated in the School of Pharmacy that changed the format of written examination to an oral supplementary examination.

The adequacy of funding arrangements should also include a critique of who these funding arrangements apply to.  That is, a critique of how adequate the HECS is in allowing all people to attend university.  There seems to be no real processes in place to ensure that funds allocated to provide a public education for tertiary students are spent on items meaningful and relevant to students.  This area is critiqued in more detail later in section D of this submission.

(B) Private Funding And Market Behaviour
ability to meet Australia’s education, training and research needs, including its effect on:
i.	the quality and diversity of education,
ii.	the production of sufficient numbers of appropriately-qualified graduates to meet industry 	demand,
iii.	the adequacy of campus infrastructure and resources,
iv.	the maintenance and extension of Australia’s long-term capacity in both basic and applied 	research across the diversity of fields of knowledge, and
v.	the operations and effect of universities’ commercialised research and development structures

There are many areas to consider when analysing the quality and diversity of education.  One such area to consider is the effectiveness of the institution and the educational system to provide for students not filling the criteria of conventional full time students.

Centrelink Payments
Although Centrelink payments are quite inadequate to full-time students, the situation is worsened for students studying a part-time load.  Students who have an “impairment rating” of 20 (Source: http://www.facs.gov.au/ssleg/toc/schedul2.htm) can apply for the Disability Support Pension with an education supplement.  However, where a student cannot fulfil that criteria the student is left to apply for a job search allowance.  Where the student is over 21 years old that allowance would be Newstart.  This means that the student must be looking for full-time work, studying less than 20 hours (including private study) and have a HECS loading of less than 0.375.  Centrelink must extend its payments to include people who for a variety of reasons are not able to study full-time.  This would recognise the diversity that is in our society when it comes to personal, professional and academic commitments.

Library Resources
The burial of thousands of books from the library of the University of Western Sydney, Macarthur has been symbolically replicated at university libraries across the country.  This has impacted on the working conditions of library staff members as well as the students and academics who use these facilities.

Libraries across the university have shortened opening hours.  In fact of the 23 libraries only 8 are open until at least 8pm on at least one day per week.  17 are not opened on either Saturday or Sunday.  (http://www.library.usyd.edu.au/about/openhrs.html)

Students who are unable to study in their homes may well have to rely on the library resources to complete their private study.  Students needing to borrow books or complete photocopying need to be available during the ordinary hours of business.  This does not cater for students who work during this time or have other commitments (eg, dependant children).  

Library staff are affected by funding cuts too.  An increase in the casualisation of workers means that during the less busy, non-semester times “excess” staff are not given work.  All staff members face an ever-increasing schedule of duties with little hope of industrial relief on the horizon.

Library financial administrators are forced to look elsewhere for money to top up their depleted budgets.  Fines for overdue books are making a growing percentage of library revenue.  Fewer items are available for general loan, with more items receiving shorter loan status or being placed in reserve.

Security Services
The inadequacies of the current security services are quite apparent.  Security jobs that are too difficult or apparently fall within their area of prejudice are “overlooked”.  This was never more obvious than at the beginning of May when the Student Representative Council was attacked.  Security was called on three separate occasions, but they still did not attend the scene.  They ignored the threat to personal and property safety.  The inadequacy of security services on campus causes an underlying danger to all students and staff members (including the security personnel).

After Hours Food
The after hours food and beverage facilities are very limited making it difficult for students to do sustained study here after the “normal” campus hours.  Alternatively students can travel to the King Street group of shops or the Broadway Shopping Centre.  Students are required to spend this time away from their study travelling to find these facilities.  This is made even more difficult and potentially dangerous for students who do not have the use of a vehicle.

Graduates In Education and in Economics and business.
Australia has a need for teachers. The numbers that are needed can surely be reasonably accurately determined by planning and demographics. The shift to relying on market forces (and declining teachers pay relativities and status) have lead to failure to meet needs. There is an expected shortfall of teachers projected in NSW in the next few years and the shortfall will need to be meet by importing teachers from overseas. 

At the University of Sydney Education Faculty enrolments have declined (21%) in the 1990's. Statistics since 1992 (the end of the CAE amalgamations process) show this clearly albeit with some pick up in the last year. Also striking is the large and increasing proportion of women enrolling as the profession has faced declining status and pay.
(Source: University of Sydney Statistics 2000:30, 1995:27, 28, 1994:28)

TOTAL EDUCATION ENROLMENTS

Year	Total enrolments	% which are women	
1992	2763	67%	
1993	2659	68%	
1994	2577	70%	
1995	2389	68%	
1996	1934	70%	
1997	2049	70%	
1998	2009	73%	
1999	2072	73%	
2000	2172	74%	

This compares with the increased numbers (more than doubling) of enrolments driven by, perceptions at least of, market demand. Whether there is a real demand, let alone need, is at best dubious. It is probable that there is an oversupply of economists. The proportion of women has increased marginally in line with female enrolments overall.

TOTAL ECONOMICS and BUSINESS ENROLMENTS

Year	Total enrolments	% which are women	
1992	2012	46%	
1993	2114	47%	
1994	2199	47%	
1995	2365	48%	
1996	3045	48%	
1997	3723	48%	
1998	4100	48%	
1999	4313	50%	
2000	4409	51%	

Market forces and the retreat of public funding have lead to the decline in an area where graduates are needed and an oversupply in an area where they are not.

Nursing Graduates 
Over the past decade our experience has seen the erosion in the quality of Nursing courses at the university level.   

Australia is experiencing a critical shortage of professionally trained nurses, but universities are unable to provide adequate numbers of graduates to meet the demand.  The Nursing faculty has been decimated by academic and general staff cuts and lack of adequate funding and resources to train our future nurses.  Library resources are pathetic.  Laboratory equipment is outdated.  Computer facilities are totally inadequate.  For example, the 24 computers, for a student population of around 1500, are cast-offs from another faculty.

All areas in undergraduate nursing courses have suffered, but particularly the clinical practice area.  Hospital closures and partial closures may be partly to blame on the shortage of clinical experience placements for nursing students, but lack of funds by the faculties to pay the hospitals for the cost of having the students is the primary reason. A graduate nurse, after 3 years study, is expected to perform at a professional level with only a total of 75-80 days practical clinical experience.

At the start of First Semester 2001 nursing students were astounded to discover that their tutorials had been cut by half – in other words, tutorials are offered ONLY EVERY SECOND WEEK. Nursing students have 10 -11 weeks of lectures, tutorials and labs each semester.  If a tutor attends all tutorials the students will have 5 tutorials per class per semester or less.  When a tutor is unable to take the scheduled tutorial because of illness, no substitute is available to replace them.  Therefore students go 4 weeks without the benefit of a tutorial. 

The Faculty of Nursing must be, urgently, given adequate resources and funding to employ more staff and to purchase up-to-date equipment for the clinical, science and computer labs.

(C) Public Liability Consequences Of Private, Commercial Activities
Commercial Exposure & Liability
There are potential liability problems, in the sense of the University not getting a 'good deal' or meeting its responsibilities as a public institution when the University enters into arrangements with third party developers or investors. Two examples of this are the on-going student housing project on University land at Carillon Avenue and the previously discussed private hospital project proposed for another University site.

The University's best interests are not served by these arrangements and at the same time they fail the test of social justice and equity. This is compounded by the decreasing level of transparency that is a result of the use of 'commercial in confidence' arrangements that are said to be required when outside commercial organisations are involved. 

The broad outline of arrangement for the student housing project in Carillon Avenue appears to be as follows: 
•	the University provides a large parcel of its 'public' land to developers in exchange for the developer building and renting out housing to students and others
•	it appears to be aimed at a mainly overseas student market. 
•	at some distant point in the future the ownership of the land and buildings will revert to the University. The condition of the buildings at that time is an unknown. 
•	the value of this inner city land is substantial
•	the developer would also have the value of using the University's name
•	it is not clear what, if any, rental return the University would get 
•	the University may have committed in additional amounts of its own funds
•	the University would probably have entered into commercial viability agreements not to compete with the new development
•	the control of the University and student residents over the future development appears to be very limited.
It was commenced despite significant local community protest over its size.

The student housing project in Carillon Avenue uses University land and is directed at the need for more housing for students close to campus. We are concerned that it does not meet the most pressing need, which is for low cost student housing. It appears the University is locked into a commercial arrangement with the developer to charge a minimum of $120.00 a week or $240.00 a fortnight. 

Despite protestations to the contrary from the University this is not low cost for students. It is possible to get lower rents in the area although supply is very limited. Students on Youth Allowance get a maximum of $343.20 per fortnight. Rent in the new project would take 70% of their income. This maximum Youth Allowance amount is lower if the student shares rent ($318) or is on Austudy ($267.40). Receipt of these payments is a very rough measure of need but is the best we have. We believe it is just such people who need suitable accommodation in order to study successfully and be able participate in University life. The project therefore fails in terms of equity. It also does not appear to make sense in market terms. There is probably an oversupply of the more expensive student accommodation places. True low cost places ($80.00 per week or less) can be filled and would be viable, the higher rent places may well not be.  

The development has stalled, possibly because of a lack of market viability. The existing teaching buildings on this big site have been demolished but it has remained a hole in the ground for the last 12 months. Commercial viability issues open the University to continued pressure to compromise and (and therefore lose out further) in order to keep the deal going.

The private hospital, which appears to be shelved for the moment, is another project that fails to meet tests of social justice or efficiency. Although information was particularly scant it appeared that the University was getting very little back for its investment of tens of millions of dollars, name, staff commitment and University land. As we understand it the University was only going to obtain ownership many years after the building was completed. In addition, we are concerned about the University entering into arrangements with private investors who have a vested interest in diverting resources away from the public health system. The new Health Policy Institute and Professor Leeder's intervention into the Medicare debate, in which he defends the public system (in the face of a tide of comment by politicians and senior doctors) is, we believe, a much more appropriate, constructive and socially just initiative. The University has not ruled out restarting the private hospital project.

Commercial Liability - The Advanced Technology Park
In the 1990's the University of Sydney joined with UTS and UNSW to set up a technology park at Everleigh in inner city Sydney - called the Advanced Technology Park. It aimed to be a vehicle for the commercialisation of knowledge produced by University staff and students generally with industry 'partnerships. It aimed to attract business to the park, and promote industry - university links such as the creation of spin off companies. 

The SRC opposed it on a number of grounds including the negative impact on the surrounding working class community.  Before the park was built, the various participating corporations assured residents that there would be no negative impact on residents from the park.  After years of listening to the drawl of the massive air conditioning units, left running 24 hours a day, residents are still battling the bureaucracy on the (apparently verbal) agreement, arguing that having no negative impact is in fact different to having no negative impact within the limits of the law.

There are also concerns about the effective transfer of public resources and knowledge and efforts of staff and students for corporate gain (corporate welfare) and the skewing of research towards market driven demands away from socially oriented research. The SRC also opposed it because here and overseas such parks are shown not to financially benefit Universities. In short they don’t make a buck for the public institution - although they may benefit business.

There are significant problems with transparency as much important information is hidden 'commercial in confidence' deals and complicated company structures. Two things appear to have happened at the ATP in the 1990's. 

Some spin off companies have been successful - the question is for who and at what cost to the University? This information is not at all easily available

One example of activity in the park is the Photonics Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) which is commercialising fibre optics research. It was established in 1992 as a joint venture between the CSIRO, four universities and five industry partners, which includes Telstra, Siemens and Transpired. The University of Sydney holds the biggest equity stake in The Australian Photonics CRC. CRC research is being incorporated in products now being manufactured and sold by the CRC’s spin off companies, one of which is Indx Pty Ltd’ also located in the ATP. (University of Sydney, Business Liaison Office, Newsletter No. 2 1997: 5) Nortel was also involved in this area with perhaps as much as $65 Million being the value of a recent float. There may or may not be parallels with Melbourne IT here. The first problem is the lack of transparency in these transfers of technology from public to private vehicles.

The second thing that happened was an uncosted or at least undisclosed loss of the University's investment in the over-arching ATP company. Due to significant commercial problems the Park appear to have gone close to the collapse in the late 1990's. The Consortium had to be bailed out by the State government through vehicle of the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Committee. Despite the ATP's publicity it was not a success. We understand but cannot confirm that in the process it probably lost all of its investment - in the ATP company if not in the spin offs. The size of the loss is unknown although it is probably in the millions and may have approached $24Million across the participating universities. This parallels the problems faced by ANU (The Australian 23/8/00) and UNSW (The Sydney Morning Herald 24/8/00) in its commercial ventures.
 
We believe that it is important that any future government investment in National R&D prompted by the recent set of reports into Science does not get put on the process line of University technology transfer for the benefit of corporations.

(D) The Equality Of Opportunity To Participate In Higher Education
i.	the levels of access among social groups under-represented in higher education,
ii.	the effects of the introduction of differential Higher Education Contribution Schemes
and other fees and charges and changes in funding provision on the affordability and accessibility of higher education,
iii.	the adequacy of current student income support measures, and 
iv.	the growth rates in participation by level of course and field of study relative to
comparable nations;

Access for Under-Represented Social Groups
There are many social groups that are under-represented in higher education. These groups include:
•	people of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander (ATSI) background;
•	people from ethnic backgrounds especially those with a non-English speaking background;
•	women;
•	disabled people or people with special needs and those engaged as their primary carers;
•	lesbian, gay, bisexual, inter-gendered, transgendered or queer people;
•	people from country or remote areas;
•	people from a low socio-economic background;
•	parents of dependant children, especial parents without partners; 
•	and people who have not just finished high school.

Some students belong to more than one of these groups and will often face a multiplicity of oppression on an ongoing basis.

Although it is alarming enough to think that minority groups are still being discouraged from gaining a tertiary education the implications are actually further reaching.  A growing rate of unemployment particularly for unskilled labour helps to enforce the cycle of poverty.  An increased level of crime and incarceration has also been theorised (particularly with Indigenous Australians) to be linked to the lack of education opportunities (1991 Report of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody).  Those who are excluded do not learn how to think critically and analyse information presented to them.  They become information slaves to the media, the government and the corporations advertising.

Governments and universities also have a responsibility to ensure that it is possible for all members of society to successfully complete their undergraduate and postgraduate study.  This responsibility is even more important for members of under-represented groups.

INDIGENOUS STUDENTS
Indigenous students face an ever increasing racist agenda, framed by a number of changes to the Abstudy scheme. People of ATSI background make up around 2% of the population and yet only account for 0.84% of students enrolled at University of Sydney.  While the University of Sydney, like many other Australian universities, offers superficial assistance, indigenous student numbers have dropped by 8% in just one year (1999 to 2000).

Women
There has been a recent resurgence in the argument that women’s liberation has gone too far and men are now being discriminated against.  This has certainly been sited in the area of higher education.  When looking at the initial data you may be tempted to agree.  At the University of Sydney 56% of all students are women.  Similarly the national figure is just over 55%.

So why then do we re-assert women as being an under-represented group in higher education?  There are many factors, which affect a woman’s ability to participate in higher education.  Women are still the primary childcarers in more than 70% of all families.  Childcare facilities on campus and in the surrounding communities are costing the individual parent more and more.  Sexism, harassment and discrimination are a reality in all faculties across universities, allowing the University of Sydney to consider the employment of a full-time investigator / manager a financially viable position.  Postgraduate participation for women in particularly low in traditionally male areas.  Companies tend to sponsor male employees over their female counterparts in the workplace, especially in coursework and research.  This is in spite of the fact that females are said to outperform male students in the course.  Women still earn less than men on average by about 20%, even as graduates.  Women are 37.6% of all academics at the University of Sydney with only 14.9% ranking at professor or above.  This is higher than the national figure of about 10% of all university professors.  The reasons that women are not participating fully in all levels of university are probably numerous and varied.  Some of the reasons may be as simple as women having a disrupted career path to care for their children.  Other reasons may be as sinister as outright sexism.

LOW SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS
People from a working class background have many challenges before them when attempting a tertiary education.  A dangerously under funded public school system makes achieving high scores on the Higher School Certificate (and other state equivalents) more difficult than for their more privileged private school competitors.  University courses charging (often illegally) ancillary fees that are either necessary or preferred for the completion of the course means that some times students have no choice but to attempt the subject without the prescribed text books, photocopied readings or equipment for the practical components of the course.

A lack of family experience at university means that many of these “first generation” university students, that is, the first in their family to attend university, do not have the advantage of being helped through day to day lecture material and assignments by parents or siblings.

The inadequacy and inflexibility of income support means that many students are now spending some of their valuable study and recreation time on part-time or casual work.  The consequences of lost study are probably obvious.  The consequences of lost recreation time can lead to increased stress levels, poor general health and an inability to feel a sense of ‘belonging’ to the institution.  That is, students are unable to make a social bond with fellow students and with the university itself, are more prone to feel that they do not belong at the university and are more likely to withdraw from the course.  (Report on First Generation University Students, University of Western Sydney, Nepean Students’ Union)

Students relying on part-time work as their only means of survival, or who have family commitments may also be forced to choose their degree based on whether or not the course is offered part-time.

Differential Higher Education Contribution Schemes (HECS)
The introduction of HECS in 1988 was made to put a proportion of the financial burden of education back onto the students.  This system fails to recognise the financial responsibilities that students already accept and the disproportionally harsh impact that it has on low socio-economic status group members.

The vast majority of students who successfully complete a tertiary degree will go on to find work in a professional field.  Here they will earn an income that is probably higher than the average wage and pay income tax that is more or less proportional.  If this income tax is used to fund, among other things, tertiary education, it could be argued that university students who pay HECS are paying twice for their own education and yet will continue to contribute to the community’s share of this burden.

A discount is offered to students who choose not to defer their HECS.  For those able to pay this amount on top of their regular beginning of year expenses their amount of financial burden is reduced by about 25%.  Those who have difficulty meeting these costs are forced to defer payment and effectively pay for a larger proportion of their education.

The lowering of the HECS repayment threshold from $28 522 in 1996 to $22 346 in 2000 further places an extra burden on the lower income earners.  Instead of using the average male annual earnings, the repayment threshold is less than three quarters of the poverty line.  These students will repay their HECS debt before they can experience a financial benefit from their tertiary study.

The introduction of differential HECS created an even greater challenge for low socio-economic status group members.  Elite courses were pushed even further out of reach with the risk of an even higher level of debt repayment due when a student starts earning the equivalent of a trainee’s wage.  Students, who may have previously chosen highly paid professional courses like dentistry, medicine and engineering, may have settled for the more generic, more affordable options of science or arts despite their lower appeal of employment prospects. (Bell Dignam, (1997) UWS Competitive Positioning Study, Post HECS and Austudy Changes, University of Western Sydney).

Fees - Vouchers
The SRC is concerned that the current Government and Minister have in the past and may in the future introduce 'student centred funding’ through vouchers or their variants. Responsiveness to the needs of students is desirable but the history of such changes to funding in the sector show that student centred funding will translate into student provided funding with significant increases to the internationally high levels of 'contribution' already provided by students.

Funding through students - in vouchers or their variants  - has the following undesirable characteristics;
a)	It loosens the connection between government and universities so that government can more easily evade its responsibility to provide sufficient funds through incremental decreases in real funding levels. We are not convinced that any short term government commitment to holding funding level to current inadequate amounts while vouchers are brought in is a realistic expectation or would supply the required stability in planning student places.
b)	It will lead to increase in fees at Universities such as Sydney through the charging of premium fees on top of government and HECS ie. funding increases at the expense of students and which discriminate against students who do not have the capacity to pay.
c)	It promotes differentiation in fee levels across the sector. This undermines regional institutions that do not have the capacity to attract fee payers. The students at Sydney University want improvements in the education they receive but not at the expense of others.
d)	It will allow ‘portability of funding’ so that private providers in the higher education sector would have access to public funding. Public funding should not be provided to profit making institutions that provide access only on the capacity to pay. Funding private providers raises problems of public accountability efficiency, quality and regulation.

Fees - The Problems with User Pays
The SRC opposes user pays fees in higher education. We believe it is an idea based on false premises.  The extension of user pays has historically been justified along four lines.
 
The first premise is that there are diminishing public funds for an expanding mass system of education. This is an ideological position about the size of (small) government and appropriate levels of taxation, not as an absolute given as suggested by many proponents of user pays.  Increased government commitment to education funded through a progressive taxation system is possible and desirable. 

The second premise is that there is a private benefit gained by education.  This is meant to justify some level of additional 'contribution' on top of taxation.  Those that argue this position cannot quantify the level of private and public benefit in aggregate or in individual cases, it becomes less relevant as higher education expands into a system of 'mass' participation. It seeks to double tax a particular cohort of students when a progressive tax system would be fairer.  

The third invokes a particular narrow concept of equity, which sees it as unfair that one category of students should pay fees and not another and this reduces to a position where ‘equity’ dictates that all should pay fees.  This position of levelling down denies a normative concept of equity, which would argue that fees would unfairly favour participation by those that with the capacity to pay. 

The fourth justification is that user pays will improve the efficiency of the system by introducing market price signals. This position assumes that higher education could work along the lines of the neo-classical economics market model whereas it is a mixed system dependent on state intervention. In addition, any price signals (fees etc) that are set up are determined by education as a positional good rather than through efficiency. Positional goods provide the purchaser with a relative advantage based on status and the value of the credential in the labour market) rather than any absolute benefit based on the quality of the education.  (Marginson S. 1997)

Fees - Postgraduate HECS?
The SRC is very concerned about the recent change proposed by the Government for income contingent (HECS like) loans for postgraduate students undertaking non-research courses. These are often vocationally oriented courses, which have been turned into postgraduate courses by Universities desperate to gain up-front fee income. As a result of the high level of fees and lack of affordability of many courses the market has fallen 6% since the introduction of fees.

The difference between HECS and this new scheme for postgraduate course work student is that such students will be able to borrow up to the limit of the tuition fee and that these fees may have no (or very high) upper limits. If this is so then the Universities will seek further funds by drawing in unwary and young students who are prepared to go into further and extensive debt. The lack of any upper caps would lead to rising fee levels and are akin to allowing no gap insurance in the health sector.

The introduction of such a scheme in the postgraduate field will act as a model for its introduction the undergraduate area. We are aware of some undergraduate students currently going into significant debt to banks to pay high upfront fees for vocational courses.

The Adequacy Of Current Student Income Support Measures
There are two broad problems with income support for students: an inadequate level of payment for those who are on payment and a lack of access to an appropriate payment for others who are not. 

These are problems because they are unjust, they cause hardship for many and they limited access and successful participation in education. 

We believe that current income support for students is inadequate as the amount of the allowance is well below poverty lines and puts many students into serious risk. Students as a group go through many years of a very low quality of life (with the added burden of accruing HECS debts). During these times they are the poorest in the society. If they are successful they may have access to better employment opportunities but this is not guaranteed. Each year approximately 25% of students do not successful progress to the next year of study.  One DETYA paper suggests that 60% of undergraduate students who enrolled at an institution in 1992 had completed an award at that institution by 1997. At least 20% of students do not complete an award at all. (Source: Urban M et al Completions, DETYA, August 1999: 1) It should be remembered that bachelor degree courses are a minimum of three years and more commonly (with the spread of combined degrees) periods of five years. In any case all members a comparatively rich society such as Australia deserve a stable minimum income for periods in their lives when they need it. When those people have the means they can and do repay it through what should be a progressive taxation system.

It is unjust that Pensioners live below the poverty line. It is unjust that Allowees get paid less than pensioners get. It is unjust that full-time students get paid less than other Allowees get. It is unjust that some full-time students get paid less than other students because they are by economic necessity are living at home even when they are considered 'independent.' [The 'Accommodated rate']. It is unjust that some students get paid less than other students get because they are by economic necessity sharing a house' [the 'Share house rate' of Rent Assistance].  It is unjust that some students get paid less than other students get because they were 25 or older when they apply [the lack of any Rent Assistance for Austudy recipients]. Most of these are changes of the last 5 years.

The needs and responsibilities and expenditure of students are not reduced because they are students. They deserve equal treatment. The incorporation of income support payments into the Social Security Act and payment system is recognition that what is being provided is a living allowance not just some top up payment to encourage people to study. Study is now a recognised 'activity' within the Act and in such a system it is discriminatory to pay student less for undertaking this activity.

The other problem that afflicts income support for students are cases where there are severely reduced payments or a lack of access to any Allowance at all.

Independence - Autonomy
Despite the need they may be in full-time students are commonly excluded from payment because of the operation of the parental income test. This in turn rests on definitions of "independence'.  All people over 18 (and some under 18) have a right to autonomy.  We believe that 18 years old (or the younger if completed secondary education) should be considered the age of 'independence' in terms of assumptions of parental support for students and unemployed people 18-21 and that the parental income test not apply when a person reaches this age.

The student sector has been arguing the importance of autonomy for students for many years and believes that the need for autonomy was recognised by the Government (at least as one strand of its rationale) since the original TEAS scheme was established in the early 1970's.

We believe that increased personal autonomy is a key value and objective for an income support system to aspire to. It is a value under significant attack in recent years. Autonomy has a non-material element to it. It means people having viable options and choices - whether they choose change or not. There is of course a material side to this.  At minimum autonomy requires the meeting of subsistence needs. If needs for things such as food and shelter are not meet than higher needs such as education are not going to be viable. Poverty reduction and access to income support is a prerequisite for autonomy.

This will not create welfare dependency. Students as a group are very active in the part-time labour market with 70% of students doing some paid work. As Robert Goodin also argues, "When critics of 'welfare dependency' argue that people should instead be 'self-reliant' or 'self- sufficient', however it is not the self alone upon which they would have people rely. Rather than eliminating dependency altogether, these critics of welfare dependency just propose shifting its locus: from the state to the market or, even more often, the family. (Goodin et al 1999: 30) 

One element of autonomy is the ability to choose to live independently - although this does not necessarily mean alone. The need to escape domestic violence or family breakdown are particularly urgent cases. But it is the right of all adults, who happen to be studying, to autonomy, viable choices and support by the state should be recognised. 

Independence/Recently Arrived Migrants - Equality/Universality  
We believe that the Government move towards the principle of universality of provision of services and support and give all members of society of working age (ie aged 18 to 65) equal standing.

Universality creates greater political support across community with the tax and transfer system balancing out distributive concerns of giving the more privileged access to government services. Citizenship is the central qualifying feature of government transfers and services. 

Citizenship entails certain rights. Article 25 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that: "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the vent of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond their control." Article 22 provides both a broad definition of citizenship to membership of society and a broad conception of the range of rights wrapped up in the idea of social security. It states: "Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality."
 
In 1950 T.H. Marshal argued that welfare was a common good and the right of all citizens. Perhaps most importantly in this argument about citizens’ rights is the concept that all citizens have rights responsibilities and obligations. The narrowing of the terms of welfare to include only the idea of support for disadvantaged groups- the problem of the poor - is to ignore the idea that "poverty is a problem not only of the poor but also of the rich, who necessarily related to each other" (Beilharz et al.  1992: 46) The goal of social security (or education provision) is 'not to aid the poor but to enable the more effective participation of all citizens in social life'.(Beilharz et al.  1992: 47)

In this context 'citizenship' be defined inclusively, to take in all members of society whether formal citizens, newly arrived migrants or refugees. Non citizens, contributing to society through their participation in education programs should be given access to broader elements of the 'welfare regime'. The Social Security Act should be amended to remove all reference to 2 year waiting periods for newly arrived migrants for social security and newly arrived migrants and refugees should not be excluded from other services that allow them to participate in society.

We believe that once Australia has accepted and often actively encouraged a person into the country it is accepting certain obligations.  The racism of the 2 year migrant waiting period for normal social security benefits and the current moral panic and backlash against refugees needs to be confronted in any discussion of citizenship. 

Income Support -  Time for learning
In the last decade there has been increasing pressure on students to work because of the lack of access or adequacy of income support payments. This is to the detriment of their studies and more general learning experience. 

A recent EIP study entitles Trends in the First Year Experience: In Australian Universities (Craig McInnis et al DETYA 2000: i) observed that:

Perhaps the most striking difference between the 1994 and 1999 responses is an increased proportion of students who are enrolled full-time and engaged in part-time work, and an increase in the average number of hours students are employed. There has been a 9 per cent increase in the proportion of full-time students who work part-time, and a 14 per cent increase in the mean number of hours they work. While the average hours worked is 12.5 hour per week, the proportion who say they work between 11 and 20 hours has increased from 32 per cent to 42 per cent since 1994. Fewer students are spending five days per week at university and average course contact hours have dropped slightly since 1994.

This is a trend the SRC has observed over a number of years. The SRC surveyed students at the end of 1998, 1999 and 2000. One of the set of questions was about time use including hours spent on study, work travel and family commitments. We also asked the broad question Do you have time for other activities? This was very deliberately designed to be quite broad. Students who responded negatively to this were clearly under great time pressure and in ways which would significantly detract from their learning experience, through extra non-contact study and through more general reflection on their studies. 

In 1998 we asked this question "Do you have time for other University activities?". 
A very large 42% of respondents said no.

In 1999 we asked the broader question "Do you have time for other activities (eg. Uni, social events, sport)?". 
This time a still significant 25 % of respondents said no.

In 2000 we again broadened the question slightly by asking,  "Do you have time for other activities (eg. Uni, social, sport)?". 
This time a similarly high 22 % of respondents said no.

These are students who have no time to 'manage'. The 'no' answer correlates closely to those with significant work hours, matching McInnis's findings. Combined with this is a very common pattern of many hours in a week spent travelling. The lack or inadequacy of income support drives students to work. The lack of cheap rental housing in Sydney and lack of rent assistance leads to students living at home or other locations far from campus. These are issues that need to be resolved.

Adequate Housing
Adequate housing is essential for human survival with dignity. Without a right to housing many other basic rights will be compromised including the right to privacy, the right to freedom of movement, the right to assembly and association, the right to health and the right to development.

A right to housing is clearly supported by international law. Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides: ‘Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well being of themselves… including housing.’ Further recognition of the right to housing can be found in many other international treaties.

The United Nations Conference on Human Settlements held in Istanbul in 1996 produced the Habitat Agenda. Among the resolutions contained in the agenda were a commitment to the full and progressive realisation of the right to adequate housing as provided for in international instruments; a commitment to expanding the supply of affordable housing through encouraging affordable rental; ensuring legal protection from discrimination in access to shelter, and fostering the accessibility of shelter for those who are less organised and informed or otherwise excluded from participation, by providing subsidies without distinction of any kind.

Australia was a signatory to this agreement.

Australia’s response to the right of housing has been a mixed one to date. Whilst the right to housing is recognised and supported in such documents such as the National Action Plan on Human Rights, the reality for marginalised individuals, particularly those living in poverty, is bleak.

The provision of housing support to tertiary students has been an area of particular concern. As most of Australia’s tertiary students are required to live in the larger metropolitan areas where the greater concentration of universities is, it follows that for most students the issue of housing is a serious one.

Sydney has one of the highest median rental prices in the world. For students living and studying in Sydney the availability of affordable housing is a major consideration in completing their university studies.

For most students in receipt of Youth Allowance the maximum payment for an independent student is $290 a fortnight. The average rental price paid for accommodation by students is $140 a week. 

Students on Youth Allowance are eligible to receive rent assistance from Centrelink. For the independent student paying $140 per week in a typical share housing arrangement, the amount they would receive is $40 dollars per fortnight.

 This means that a student in receipt of the maximum payment of Youth Allowance at an independent rate, and in receipt of the relevant sum of rent assistance would be paying 87% of their income on rent.

The World Health Organisation has researched extensively the issue of shelter affordability. Their studies have shown that the maximum percentage of income payable on rent for sustainable health and economic wellbeing to be in the region of 30%. For the average tertiary student at an Australian University it is almost three times greater.

Furthermore the provision of rent assistance appears largely arbitrary. For students in receipt of Austudy, there is no provision for rent assistance. This despite the fact that many Austudy recipients are married or in de facto relationships, and may have children. These are the very criteria considered by Centrelink to entitle a recipient of rent assistance to a higher rate of assistance. 

It follows that many students undertake employment as a financial necessity. However the regressive policy on students’ earnings creates a poverty trap. Anecdotal evidence from welfare providers in the Sydney metropolitan region suggests a significant increase in the number of students seeking food clothing and, most worryingly, crisis accommodation.

Eligibility for rent assistance clearly impacts on young peoples decisions to study and influences choice of educational institution, living arrangement and engagement in paid employment. These are very important non-shelter aspects of housing assistance. 

The Australian government should therefore undertake to change their approach to shelter policy, ensuring consistency and coordination of macroeconomic and shelter policies and strategies as a social priority. The well acknowledged role of shelter in supporting employment generation, poverty eradication and social integration should be recognised in policy formulation.

Shelter policy should be recognised as interdependent with overall macroeconomic policy. Government should prohibit discriminatory, exclusionary practices related to shelter, employment and access to social and cultural facilities and enable youth by supporting and valuing their ability to play an active and creative role in building sustainable communities.

The existing provisions for financial support for students are plainly inadequate.   

(F) The Capacity Of Public Universities To Contribute To Economic Growth
i.	in communities and regions,
ii.	as an export industry, and
iii.	through research and development, both via the immediate economic contribution of
universities and through sustaining national research capacity in the longer term;

A chronic overemphasis on the economic benefit ignores the more significant social benefit of a successful education system.  While money spinning has obvious short term advantages, including funding further education ventures, the less obvious intellectual growth and emotional benefit to individuals and the community are far more long term based, providing an ever increasing value to the individuals involved and the community to which they belong.

For example, providing overcrowded tutorials or replacing face to face contact hours with computerised “flexible delivery” methods immediately allows university departments to spend less money on staffing for that particular subject.  The loss of quality education is not readily measured, with students taking whatever necessary steps to achieve the best grades that they can.  However, the loss of opportunity for those students to learn and develop their ability to critically analyse a given situation or critique another person’s opinion can not be measured.  However, that loss may never be recovered.  Those students not only lost out on the potential lessons from the tutorial teacher, but also their fellow classmates too.  It would be undeniable that a society would benefit from being a “smarter country”, but until it can be equated with a dollar figure or it can be perceived as non-threatening to governments, corporations and other power holders this ‘phenomena’ will be ignored.

As an export industry, the ability of universities to collect an up front tuition fee from international students has often been seen as a huge financial benefit and a way of reducing the burden of funding the education of domestic students.  However, if universities provide a reasonable quality of education for these students and allowed them to be properly resourced the “profit” that they generate would at best be negligible.  Perhaps this is why international students, though charged several thousands of dollars each year, are still subject to the same over crowded and under-resourced education system that domestic students are subjected to.

The university’s ability to contribute to economic growth through research and development is largely being reduced through a shortsighted profit based approach.  Research and development for the benefit of the community is being over-ridden by profit driven corporatised research.  This is clearly illustrated by the large (and growing) list of multinational corporations who fund research every year at University of Sydney.  Students research projects are directed towards their ability to attract corporate interest and therefore draw funds.  This does not always address the deficit in research and analysis in the local, national and international areas.  It is alleged that results are encouraged through financial appeasement rather than through genuine research methods.  (That is, the same phenomenon that sees research scientists from tobacco companies finding that passive smoking is not harmful.)  The public sector is reducing its responsibility to provide fair and unbiased opinions and knowledge, while the private sector grows stronger in its foothold.

Universities are even further increasing the difficulty on university academics to conduct research.  Only the easily quantified face-to-face teaching time is considered as essential when calculating departmental budgets.  An increased load on academics to teach classes that are larger in size means that research time is being eaten away by students’ consultation and assessment marking time.

(G) The Regulation Of The Higher Education Sector In The Global Environment
i.	accreditation regimes and quality assurance,
ii.	external mechanisms to undertake ongoing review of the capacity of the sector to meet
Australia’s education, training, research, social and economic needs, and
iii.	university governance reporting requirements, structures and practices;

The Role of Students in University Governance
University governance is a major area of concern from the Students’ Representative Council of the University of Sydney.  The systems used by the university for quality assurance are losing their effectiveness as they look to corporatisation for answers to government funding cuts.  Students should be seen as the principal stake holder of universities and as such deserve to have genuine input into the decisions of the institution.  However, reality lies far from this.  

Through enrolment, students acquire a formal character and can be said to have commonly ascribable characteristics and interests due to fact that they now belong to a higher education institution.  Common concerns include access to education facilities and teaching programs, which are of a high standard, a liberal student financing policy, absence of fees and access to facilities such as childcare, security etc.  These are controlled by the university.  Therefore it is important that general student membership is represented in decision-making bodies that affect student lives.  Such representation is representation of students as stakeholders.

Participation is not guaranteed by representation.  It is important to have more than just a student “voice” on university bodies.  Students are not simply stakeholders whose interests need to be looked after but must be included as part of governance – effective and equitable governance is not possible without students.  They need to make decisions and have ownership over their university.  Participation is also necessary because more than having the formal character of being students, students have an objective character as people in society, University decisions affect students not just as students but as single parents, women, from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, queer, mature age, part-time etc.  Therefore, it is important to have students in university governance in order for the university to be more attuned to the demands that arise in a heterogeneous student body.

Extent and nature of involvement of students
Although it would not be fair to assume that all universities have the same issues with university governance, it would be reasonable to site situations and examples specific to the University of Sydney and assume similarities at other campuses.

In order to have effective student involvement, and if we are serious about involvement of students into the university (that is, more than just token numbers on an Academic Board or a University Senate) certain conditions need to be fulfilled:

•	Accessibility of university structures, like the Forum, to students
•	Democracy of university structures

It is through understanding the status of these conditions that we can understand why the University of Sydney Forum, like many other universities, has so many student (and staff) vacancies.

1.  Accessibility of university structures (LIKE THE FORUM)
It is possible that students are apathetic about being involved in university governance.  However, given the incredible popularity of Union and SRC elections at the University of Sydney, in terms of nominations and voting rates (~20% of student population vote), and given the resurgence in University of Sydney Senate nominations (1 in 1998 to over 15 last year), it is a very unlikely scenario.  The problem is that the Forum is inaccessible to students (and staff), and furthermore, other governance structures within the university are inaccessible to it.  This problem can be understood in 3 ways:
a)	Accessibility to students before election to Forum (through election to Faculty Boards).

•	Students do not know what the Forum is – no effort is made to let them know and recognise it as an open Forum for discussion of pertinent issues.
•	Students are unaware of nomination procedures for Faculty Boards
•	Nominations take place very close to mid-semester break in Semester 2
•	Students are not encouraged to participate at a departmental level either through Staff / Student Liaison Committees or by lecturers urging students to participate
•	Students do not know what these positions entail
•	Votes need to be posted at own expense, rather than postage paid or open ballots

The university can remedy these problems through sufficient advertisement of nominations in student publications, mailouts to faculty and departmental societies and to departments themselves. Circulation of minutes to faculty societies and departments may increase awareness of Forum. Appropriate timing of elections will maximise awareness of elections to Faculty Boards.  Lecturers could be encouraged to mention nominations in their classes.

b)	Accessibility of Forum to elected students
Once students are elected to Faculty Boards and the Forum, their participation is still not guaranteed and definitely not encouraged.  If students have gone to effort of nominating, surely they are willing participants to some degree. However peak participation does not materialise for several reasons:
•	Very few students speak at meetings as meetings are intimidating, discussion is confusing and they generally have no context or background in which to put the debate.    
•	Agenda and minutes are by no means extensive and do not allow students to follow debate – student comments or sensitive comments are often not minuted at all
•	Meetings are held at times that are hard for students (and staff) to attend, ie. during class time (2p.m.) and on the first day of Semester 1 (ie. today)
•	No standard meeting procedure followed or meeting procedure followed is unclear
•	General membership cannot access student members as they do not know who their representatives are
Solution
•	A training program should be run for all student members of Faculties, Academic Forum and Academic Board.  Ideas include a seminar on how the university works; introductions to important people such as Faculty Deans, Chair of Forum, secretary to Forum, VC etc; a seminar on the relationship between Faculty Board and Academic Forum, Forum and Board, Forum and Senate, the University and Government; a seminar on meeting procedure; holding a mock meeting etc. 

•	Meetings should be scheduled in consultation with students and other members, Renton’s Guide to meeting procedure or something similar should be followed as formal meeting structure encourages participation.

•	 Student members’ (and other members’) names should be published in Honi Soit and Union Recorder.  

•	It would be valuable to have a Student Liaison Officer of the Forum, whose responsibly is to liase with students, keep them in the loop and make Forum a more comfortable place.  

There is no reason to believe that unless a meeting is regal, majestic and intimidating, it is not a valid meeting.  

Accessibility of other university structures to Forum, or Functionality of Forum: ‘What happens after a Forum meeting?’

This has to do with what the intention of the Forum is.  University By-law (1996) states that the functions of the Forum are to:
1.	provide a forum broadly representative of the University’s academic community to debate academic policy;
2.	advise the Board of matters of academic policy, including teaching and learning, research, student matters and academic staffing; and
3.	Serve the university’s academic community as a body where concerns and grievances affecting the academic community can be aired and brought to the attention of the Vice-Chancellor.

However, debate does not happen effectively as no motions are debated any more, no recommendations are made any more.  The relationship of the Board and Senate is mostly clear but the Forum sits uneasily amongst these.  It offers non-binding advice to the Board – this advice is not discussed or dealt with in any systematic way.  Although the functions of the Forum involve the Board, the Terms of Reference of the Academic Board do not mention the Forum, let alone any obligation to at least receive advice from the Forum.  The functions of the Forum do not mention any relationship to the Senate even though one might imagine that the most representative and participatory of university structures might have some role to play in the Senate. The Forum also plays no role in advising Faculty Boards on and of academic policy even though they are probably one of the most appropriate places for such advice.  The other governance structures in the university are, by and large, inaccessible to the Forum.  Members feel disempowered – why should they waste time in their overworked academic lives to attend meetings that no one pays attention to any more?  This explains why there not only student vacancies but also several staff vacancies, including Heads of department vacancies. If Heads of departments do not feel the urge to attend, why would students?   

Democracy
University structures are not democratic – under a newfound faith in managerialism at this university, we are seeing a reduction in representation in the name of efficiency – more and more executive decisions, less and less democratic ones.  Governance bodies are getting smaller in size as well as number. Examples include the Academic Board restructure that reduced the numbers of the Academic Board; students on Senate have been halved; Faculty Boards do not meet as often any more, leaving more and more decisions to Deans; Boards of Examiners have ceased to exist as heads of department now have final say in marking.  This reduces accountability as stakeholders are no longer privy to management decisions or have say in making those decisions.  It also reduces participation as staff and students do not feel they can have any governing power any more.  Management is very differentiated to general staff (academics and non-academics), therefore staff become simply employees who collect pay cheques rather than contributors to this institution. Students and staff are less and involved and no longer have a defined role they can play.  Therefore, it is no wonder there are so many vacancies on the Forum.

(H) Independent Advice To Government On Higher Education Matters
The National Board of Employment, Education and Training though certainly not flawless was more representative than its departmental replacement.  An underlying tendency will exist for the department to find statistical evidence to support government favoured theories.  For example, the department has shown that HECS provides an accessible tertiary education system to people from all societal groups.  This is in direct opposition to studies done by university student associations and welfare groups.

As with university structures, the government would be best served using a more democratic, representative and participative structure that incorporates a “bottom up” approach or hierarchy.  This would harness the energy, enthusiasm and ideas that already exist within student bodies.

A more detailed analysis of the role of students in a representative forum is presented in the previous section of this submission.

Recommendations
The Students’ Representative Council of the University of Sydney makes the following recommendations to the Senate Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education References Committee.

Recommendation A1
That the State and Federal Government increase its funding to universities to be 100% of universities revenue.

Recommendation A2  
That University of Sydney increase the number of tutorials offered such that every subject offers at least one tutorial per week that provides face-to-face interaction for students.

Recommendation A3
That University of Sydney decrease the proportion of casualised academic labour and replace them with full or part-time employees.

Recommendation B1 
That the Federal Government introduce a Centrelink payment for students who are studying part-time but are not seeking full-time employment and are not eligible for other payments.

Recommendation B2
That the University of Sydney increase the hours that their libraries are open such that each library is open until 8pm on at least two nights and one weekend day per semester week.

Recommendation B3
That the University of Sydney conduct a review in conjunction with the Students’ Representative Council with regard to the level of security personnel hours required to maintain an acceptable level of safety on campus.

Recommendation D1
That the Federal Government conduct a Senate Enquiry into the low levels of participation of Indigenous students in higher education.

Recommendation D2
That the Federal Government implement a system of State-funded Childcare for parents attending higher education institutions.

Recommendation D3
That the Federal Government implement taxation incentives to encourage corporations who fund postgraduate study for women.  Moreover that corporations should be encouraged to install more women (50%) onto their board of directors.

Recommendation D4
That the Federal Government increase the threshold where Centrelink starts to reduce payments for income earned per week to a rate equivalent to 20 hours times the average hourly wage rate.

Recommendation D5
That the system of differential HECS be abolished and replaced with the original single tiered system of HECS.

Recommendation D6
That the system of HECS be abolished and replaced with a system where there is no direct or deferred cost to the individual student and all funding for education is provided through a progressive taxation system.

Recommendation D7
That the HECS repayment threshold be raised to the equivalent of the average male annual earnings.

Recommendation D8
That the Federal Government affirm that they will not introduce the Voucher system of tertiary education fees on the basis of its inequity.

Recommendation D9
That the application user pays fees in higher education not be extended and that they be progressively eliminated.

Recommendation D10
That all postgraduate course be provided to students free of direct or deferred cost to the individual student but funded through a progressive taxation system.

Recommendation D11
That the Federal Government increase the rate of all Centrelink payments so that they are equal to 100% of the poverty line.

Recommendation D12
That the Government work towards a true common and non discriminatory payment that adequately supports all members of society who are in need.
Recommendation D13
That the rate of independence for Centrelink payments be lowered to 18 years of age.

Recommendation D14
That the two year waiting period for migrants and refugees be abolished so that they may be eligible for Centrelink payments upon arrival into Australia.

Recommendation D15
That the University of Sydney provide housing to students whose income is under the poverty line at a rate of 30% of the poverty line.

Recommendation G1
That the University of Sydney provide students with 50% of positions on all university committees, especially their Senate committee.  Further that these positions be elected by the student body.

Recommendation H1
That the Department of Employment, Education and Training be compelled to take advice from a committee that meets to discuss and debate matters of Education.  Further that this committee have students as 50% of its members.

To contact the SRC…

Telephone	(02) 9660 5222	
Fax	(02) 9660 4260	
Email	src@src.usyd.edu.au	
Mail	PO Box 794,
Broadway  NSW  2007