AUSTRALIAN DEMOCRATS DISSENTING REPORT
1.0 Introduction
The Australian Democrats believe that students must be able to control
their own affairs to protect their academic and social rights.
Under the misleading banner of “Voluntary Student Unionism”
(VSU), State Liberal Governments have imposed changes to student organisations
without consultation, and without a mandate from the student body. The
changes vary between States and institutions; however, the basic premise
is the removal of the principle of universal membership of the university
student community.
The State Liberal Governments in Western Australia and Victoria have
attacked the autonomy of universities and their student organisations
(associations, unions and guilds). This bill seeks to implement the WA
model of VSU across the nation.
The Higher Education Amendment Bill 1999 was introduced into the Parliament
with the claim that it would offer students freedom of choice and autonomy
and that this choice would enhance services and representation currently
enjoyed by university students studying at Australian higher education
institutions.
The evidence presented to the Committee discredits these claims.
The Australian Democrats found that this Bill is part of the ongoing
ideological campaign of the conservative Governments to silence the student
voice, and that VSU has curbed the ability of students to protect their
academic and political rights.
Further, the Bill has the potential to constitute a further $94 million
in funding cuts to university student services and emasculates student
organisations.
2.0 The Evidence
2.1 International Experience
Students in the United Kingdom, Canada and the United States of America
all have universal membership of student organisations .
The modes of student organisation funding vary, but all rely on a principle
of compulsory funding with the option to opt out or conscientious objection:
the payment of a compulsory student fee is widely accepted as the best
way of providing student support services and representation in the United
Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand and the United States of America. [1]
2.2 The Australian Experience
The Australian Liberal Student Federation (ALSF) twenty-year campaign
to introduce VSU has been largely unsuccessful.
VSU currently exists in Western Australia and Victoria, and in a technical
form, in Tasmania. VSU has only ever been implemented through the legislative
processes of Conservative Governments rather than campus referendum.
Student organisations are a vital part of university campus life and
the key services provided by student organisations include:
Academic Advice and Advocacy
Bars and Bistros
Binding Services
Bookshops and Retail Outlets
Campus Media and Student Newspapers
Campus Sports
Catering and Food Services
Child Care
Computer Facilities
Concerts
Conference and Meeting Rooms
Discount Ticketing
Facility Upkeep and Maintenance
Function Spaces
Gymnasiums
Information and Inquiry Services
Interest Clubs and Societies
Sporting Facilities
Student Development Courses
Student Employment Services
Student Lounges
Trips and Tours
University Diaries
University Games
Welfare Services [2]
The Australian Democrats observe that student organisations in the 1990s
do not identify with student organisations of the 1970s. They maintain
a role in which they serve their constituency and their communities.
Examples such as that presented by the University of Southern Queensland
Student Guild which works in partnership with the local Chamber of Commerce
to promote a `buy local' campaign in regional Queensland, demonstrate:
The contemporary student guild has little in common with student unions
of twenty years ago, which were at the time perceived as political or
militant organisations.
And further, that:
The student organisation of the late 1990's works with the local community,
and furthers the rights and opportunities of students within the university
and broader community. [3]
2.3 The WA Experience
The Australian Democrats believe that the Bill will replicate the WA
experience on university campuses across the nation. As such, the WA experience
is the one from which we draw our conclusions as to the effect of this
Bill.
The Australian Democrats find that an unacceptable number of student
support services are no longer made available to university students in
WA.
These include: student emergency loans; student accident insurance; recreational
`lounges'; education and welfare advice; Guild shops; personal advocacy
for students with academic grievances; Guild Computer lounges; affiliation
to the Australian University Sports; sexual assault referral services;
women's departments and women's rooms; parenting rooms; weekly campus
newsletters; tool libraries; orientation camps; and, clubs and societies.
[4]
Further, the Australian Democrats note with concern that the Edith Cowan
University (ECU) Student Guild, has only been able to sustain its operations
with assistance from the ECU administration, and that currently many of
the services provided to student at ECU are only made possible because
of a university grant:
The Vice-Chancellor of Edith Cowan has stated that to offset the loss
of essential services from the student guild the university has been
forced to step in and provide: off campus housing advice, personal accident
insurance cover and sport and recreational activities. In additional
the university provided the ECU Guild with $100,000 in 1998 to support
a limited range of representational, recreational social and cultural
activities, as well as the crucial orientation program. [5]
It is uncertain whether the ECU will continue to provide such a grant
to ensure the existence of its Student Guild.
ECU is the youngest university in Western Australia, and has three campuses
in metropolitan Perth, and one regional campus in Bunbury. It serves as
an example of how multi- campus, regional and post-Dawkins universities
will respond to this Bill.
According to NUS (WA):
Before the introduction of VSU, the ECU guild funded 28 full-time staff
to assist students. Now that number has been reduced to a mere 3 –
who are still expected to service the four campuses. The Guild bookshop
and Service Centre have been forced to close down for extended periods
due to lack of finances to maintain operation costs, and staff wages.
The situation came to a head this year with the Guild being forced
to bring in an independent administrator to assess the financial viability
of the organisation.
Edith Cowan Guild is a prime example of the type of university that
will be hardest hit under the proposed legislation. Newer universities,
with multiple campuses, do not have the financial resources or the commercial
operations to be able to fund essential services. [6]
The Australian Democrats concur with the observation of the AV-CC:
the Edith Cowan experience does not augur well for similar institutions
if VSU comes into effect. [7]
The Committee has based assertions that VSU has not destroyed the WA
Student Guilds on a statement made in recruitment material distributed
to students in Orientation week to the effect that the Guild was `vibrant'.
This material is designed to encourage students to join their Guild and
as such it attempts to portray the Guild in the most favourable light.
Significantly, this material refers to the proud traditional and history
of the Guild, it is not relevant to a discussion of the future of a guild
in a VSU environment.
The Minister for Education, Dr David Kemp, has also used this particular
material to aim to portray that the WA Guilds are thriving. The Edith
Cowan University Postgraduate Student Association observes that this Orientation
material has been portrayed without proper context:
The Minister's use of this material was disingenuous as the orientation
information produced by the WA guilds (on which the Minister's statements
were based) is aimed at encouraging students to join their respective
Guild.
These Guilds would not be very successful in attracting members if
they admitted that VSU had decimated the services previously provided
to students, or that their continued existence was in doubt as a direct
result of VSU. The absolute inaccuracy of the Minister's assertions
was proved the day after his statement with the announcement of the
collapse of the Student Guild at Edith Cowan University. [8]
This issue highlights a further disadvantage of the WA VSU system –
that is that Student Guilds in WA must devote significant time and energy
into self-promotion rather than service and representation.
2.4 Another Funding Cut to Universities
The Australian Democrats believe that the introduction of VSU amounts
to a further funding cut to the higher education sector. The Australian
Vice-Chancellors' Committee (AV-CC) presented evidence to the committee
that if the WA example were translated nationally then VSU would represent:
A 75 per cent reduction in student service fees paid nationally would
see the loss of some $94 million in funds earmarked for the provision
of student services. [9]
The social support for students which would be lost as a result of this
predicted funding shortfall could not reasonably be expected to be alleviated
by university administrations, who submitted that they would be unable
to provide and support the facilities currently funded through the student
amenities fees. [10]
The Australian Democrats are particularly concerned that the very services
which assist students in the greatest need, such as child care and legal
and welfare services are also among the most likely to be withdrawn in
a VSU climate.
2.4.1 Child Care
Student organisations have played an integral role in the initiation
of child care facilities on campus. In many cases, the support to services
such as child care is financially substantial. For example, University
of Technology – Sydney, provides $8,000 in basic child care funding,
and a further $12,000 in child care fee relief for students with children
who are in financial difficulty. It is unlikely that university budgets
would be stretched further than they already are to account for the provision
of child care at the expense of funding for `core' education and research
activities.
Yet without child care many student parents would be unable to pursue
education.
2.4.2 Legal and Welfare Services
Legal and welfare services are also threatened by this bill. These are
services that many students would not ordinarily predict they would be
in need of, but which form a crucial part of the safety net within the
university community:
The legal service, and the welfare services, of the SRC deals with
problems or crises. A student, especially a young or country interstate
or overseas student, may not predict that they are going to become homeless,
or to be a victim of violence, or be discriminated against, or lose
their student benefit, or be charged with a crime or have disciplinary
proceedings taken against them by the University and yet our statistics
show that this happens to our clients. The system of universal membership
is a safety net for the student body [11]
The Australian Democrats are concerned that regional and rurally based
students in particular would be adversely affected given:
Even in the metropolitan areas this would cause grave hardship as many
submissions noted that the withdrawal of campus legal services would place
greater pressure onto:
2.5 Student Representation
Student organisations are uniquely placed to offer the provision of information
regarding university processes and student rights and responsibilities.
Universal membership of student organisations is the only way in which
student organisations can claim to represent fully all student interests.
Limited membership would institutionalise the membership of minorities.
Thus universal membership is important for students to receive genuine
representation.
2.6 Freedom of Association
The contention that universal membership contravenes freedom of association
has been rejected by the Federation of Community Legal Centres (Victoria)
inc [14] and the NSW Council for Civil Liberties,
[15] among many others.
Indeed, a motion passed unanimously at the NSW Council for Civil Liberties'
Council meeting affirms that:
Student fees are a legitimate tax on those enrolled at higher education
institutions, to enable the provision of universal services and the
maintenance of student representative bodies….We consider that
the existing `opt out' clauses, where individual students can resign
form a student union, are an adequate safeguard for those who conscientiously
object to belonging to a union. [16]
The Australian Democrats note that the contention that universal membership
of a student organisation imposes upon a student's freedom of association
has been tested and disproved on many occasions. The Courts have consistently
found that universities are public institutions which people choose to
join, and which have legitimate taxation structures.
The Australian Democrats maintain that student organisations are analogous
to local Governments, where a democratically elected body drawn from the
community levies charges from its members to provide services, and representation.
The culture of a university campus is as intrinsically linked to the
student organisation as the culture and identity of a local community
is connected to its local Government. These analogies were supported by
the submissions of many student organisations and also the City of Bendigo
Council [17]
2.6.1 A Student Union is not a Trade Union
Proponents of VSU contend that student unions are akin to trade unions
and therefore this Bill merely represents an extension of the Workplace
Relations Act.
The Australian Democrats note that student unions are not trade unions,
and that this is a distinction recognised by many groups and individuals
not necessarily well disposed towards the principles of unionism, and
most notably by the British Conservative Party. [18]
Indeed, the TCCI expressed their support for a distinction to be made
between a student union and trade unions in their submission that the
Tasmanian University Union:
is a longstanding Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry member,
something which in the case of an industrial union, while not legally
impossible, is so unlikely in a practical sense as to be disregarded.
[19]
Previous Government interpretations of student `union fees' and trade
union fees reflect that there is little consistency in their argument.
In the area of Industrial Relations this Government has hitherto considered
that student union are not trade unions.
The Australian Democrats recognise that student unions are not
trade unions, and reiterate our position that student organisations are
analogous to local government.
A further argument made in support of VSU by the Committee is that students
should not be forced to fund activities that they do not agree with. Leslie
Barry Bishop, in her submission to the committee noted that she did not
always agree with everything that a student organisation said or did,
but understood and accepted that this was a function of representative
democracy, and is reflected in the workings of the Parliament itself.
While as a middle aged, conservative Australian, I do not always agree
with the political stances taken by various student unions, I believe
firmly that the vitality and vigour of the student voice is one of the
measures of a nation's spiritual and social health. …. The passing
of the Bill will effectively limit the voice of university students….do
other Australians have such blanket choices? Do they all choose to pay
for submarines and fighter aircraft, VIP flights and ministerial cars
for members of government [20]
2.6.2 Conscientious Objection
The Australian Democrats support the AV-CC and others that an extension
of conscientious objection rights to all students, without an accompanying
financial incentive, adequately safeguards the rights of those who can
not be members of a student organisation for reasons of spiritual belief.
The Australian Democrats note that the evidence presented by DETYA regarding
the institutions which hold a policy of conscientious objection was misleading,
and that to our knowledge only three institutions do not currently have
a policy in this area.
The Australian Democrats recommend that those institutions currently
without a policy of conscientious objection investigate implementing procedures
for students to conscientiously object, without financial incentive, to
membership of their student organisation.
2.7 Even VSU Supporters Do Not Support the WA Model
The Australian Democrats note that even proponents of VSU expressed concern
regarding the harshness of the model proposed by the Government.
The Australian Democrats note that the Young Nationals at ANU warn the
Government against supporting a WA model of VSU and urging the Government
to instead consider the Victorian Model:
As Young Nationals we support the student guilds in their opposition
to the Western Australian model…we support our fellow National
Party Members in their opposition to the Western Australian Model, and
fully support their endorsement of the Victorian Model. [21]
The Young Nationals go on to note the adverse impact that VSU legislation
will have on students from regional campuses:
We must keep the guild infrastructure, this important area is often
accessed by people who have come from isolated areas and have no other
means of support. [22]
The Australian Democrats note that the Victorian model of VSU allows
many student services to be funded, and the legislation stipulates tight
criteria for what can and cannot be funded. We note that student services
and representation in Victoria will be lost if the Government succeeds
in implementing the WA model.
The Australian Democrats do not support either the Western Australia
or the Victorian model of VSU.
2.8 A Financial Disincentive to Study
The Australian Democrats are committed to improving the access and participation
of groups in the community, which have historically been, and continue
to be, under-represented in higher education. These groups include indigenous
Australians, people from low socio-economic backgrounds, people from rural
or isolated backgrounds, people from a non-English speaking and in some
disciplines, women,
We note that when the Whitlam Government abolished university tuition
fees in 1973, student amenities fees for those students eligible for student
assistance were also effectively abolished.
The Australian Democrats note that the Whitlam Government, in its deliberations,
acknowledged the role of student organisations:
Fees to be abolished will comprise tuition fees and associated charges
such as library, graduation and laboratory fees. Student representative
council, union and sport fees will continue to be a responsibility of
the student. However, students in receipt of living allowances will
receive an incidentals allowance from which they may meet their obligation
for these fees. The Government is well aware of the many commitments
which student unions have, particularly in resect of loans obtained
for the development of student union facilities, and thus will expect
the institutions to make the payment of these fees compulsory for all
students and also be responsible for their collection. [23]
This initiative of the Whitlam government provides a fine example of
how this Government could ameliorate the current financial disincentive
to study encountered by many students.
The Australian Democrats have some sympathy with arguments that
an upfront fee is a financial disincentive to study and we are interested
in further investigating options for those who can not afford to pay.
The second approach presented in evidence to the Committee would involve
the Government making a loan to the university equivalent to the amenities
fee for those students unable to pay this fee upfront, and recouping this
fee through the income tax system as per the HECS payment system. We note
that the AV-CC supports the extension of the HECS payment mechanism to
cover student amenities fees. [24]
The AD preferred position to addressing any financial disincentive
to study posed by student amenities fees is to ensure that student benefits,
such as Youth Allowance, Austudy payment, or Abstudy are adjusted to include
a payment to cover the student's amenity fee.
Further, the Australian Democrats condemn the withdrawal of the merit
equity scholarships, and urge the Government to ensure the participation
of students from educationally disadvantaged circumstances.
2.9 The Campaign to discredit Student Organisations:
The Australian Democrats reject the pro-VSU campaign to discredit student
organisations by alleging funding of political organisation outside the
student movement. The two key charges made by the pro VSU lobby are that
student unions have funded the PLO and the ALP. Both of these claim are
denied by NUS. [25]
The allegation of PLO funding is also strongly refuted in correspondence
from Ambassador Ali Kazak, Head of Delegation to Australia and Ambassador
of Palestine to Vanuatu, categorically stating that the PLO has never
received any monies from the NUS or any other university student organisation.
These allegations are baseless and completely untrue. Australian student
unions have never contributed money or donations of any kind to the
PLO. [26]
2.9.1 Destroying what you cannot control
Student monies are collected by student organisations and decision to
allocate these monies is made through democratic processes.
However, there is a belief held by VSU campaigners that student organisations
tend to support left wing over right wing ideology. As one submission
maintained:
given the left domination of Australian universities and student unions
in particular, compulsory student unionism means ….(subsidising)
the political training of the (looney) left. [27]
The Australian Democrats note that members of Australian Liberal Students
Federation (ALSF) have campaigned on this issue for some twenty years
without drawing support from the student body to implement VSU through
these democratic processes.
Indeed, the Victorian Liberal Students Association claims that:
Yet, the introduction of VSU in that State was enacted by the Kennett
Government, and not by mandate from the student body.
The Australian Democrats have little sympathy for Liberal Students who,
having not managed to gain election to positions of influence within their
student organisations, have resorted to parliamentary intervention to
destroy that which they can not control.
As further evidence of this frustration with democratic process we note
that in response to a request for a list of members of the ALSF who gained
major office bearer positions and `control' of their student organisations
in the past five years, that at least two of the examples given, Sydney
and Melbourne University, ALSF campaigns were certainly not successful
in the past five years.
A former Education Minister in the South Australian Liberal Government,
Dr Bob Such noted this legislation represented a `settling of old scores'
recently:
If the students at university do not like what is being done with their
money, they should do something about it: they should get off their
backsides and change the rules.
I am afraid that what is happening is that people are fighting battles
of the 1970s. The universe does not end or begin at Monash. [29]
Unlike his federal colleagues, Dr Such welcomes freedom of speech, rather
than the silence of dissent. He continued that student organisations:
should be a thorn in the side, at times, on issues. They should be
challenging or questioning whether it is a Labor, Liberal, or whatever
government. The tragedy is that the universities have been silenced.
Apart from a few academics, not many people are prepared to say anything
because they are afraid of having their funding cut.
The Australian Democrats do not believe that the Parliament should be
debased to sort out old feuds and involve itself in the settling of political
scores for former and current members of the ALSF who have failed to gain
the electoral support of their fellow students.
2.10 Legal Challenges and State versus Commonwealth Jurisdictions
The Australian Democrats hold grave concerns that the Bill could destabilise
the funding arrangements of the higher education sector if the VSU provisions
of the Bill are enacted. That the issue will provoke resistance is unquestionable,
the controversial nature of the VSU issue has already been well established.
The Australian Democrats do not take lightly the AV-CC and the NSW Council
for Civil Liberties statements that the there will be a question over
the validity of this legislation:
that is whether the mechanisms to enforce `voluntary student unionism'
is encompassed by s. 51 (xxiiiA) of the Australian constitution [30]
Moreover, the Queensland Minister for Education is confident that his
Government would pursue the matter of funding arrangements between the
States and the Commonwealth in the event that the VSU provisions in the
Bill become law.
The Queensland Government contends that, if the Commonwealth legislates
to remove the compulsory nature of fees for student representative councils,
it will have revoked or withdrawn from every one of the obligations
it accepted as a basis for its offer to assume full funding responsibility
for tertiary education. Moreover it will represent an intrusion into
university processes and the autonomy of each institution, in total
contradiction of the principles of agreement made in 1973. [31]
It has also been argued that Federal Government legislation, such as
VSU,
impinges on the institutional autonomy of universities, which are established
-- with the exception of ACT and the NT -- under State legislation. When
WA and Victorian Governments introduced VSU in the mid 1990s federal Coalition
members decried the introduction of the Student Organisation support (SOS)
funding as interference with states' rights.
As Mr Cameron, Member for Stirling, stated:
it is an affront to democracy that the Government is riding roughshod
over the states by introducing legislation to try to coerce the states
into acceding to its philosophical viewpoint [32]
In addition to this, Coalition Education policy prior to the 1996 Federal
Election also explicitly stated that:
The hypocrisy of this Government's about face on State versus Commonwealth
rights on this issue is condemned by the Australian Democrats.
3.0 Conclusion
3.1 Let Students Handle Student Issues
The Australian Democrats are angered that this bill has reached the Parliament,
and indeed has been prioritised by this Government. The issue of student
organisations and their functioning is one for students to decide through
the democratic mechanisms available to them . Indeed, it is probably easier
for students to individually influence the direction of their representative
student organisations than it is to influence any other institution within
Australian society.
If student organisations were as irrelevant as proponents of VSU claim
they are were, there would be no need for this Bill as students themselves
would seek to abolish them.
The Australian Democrats believe that the best course of action on this
issue is, to quote the VLSF Submission's conclusion, is to:
let students handle student issues. [34]
The Australian Democrats reject VSU and oppose the withdrawal of
SOS funding for student organisations in VSU States.
Senator Natasha Stott Despoja
Australian Democrats
Footnotes
[1] Australasian Campus Union Managers Association,
Submission No.159, p. 4.
[2] Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee response
to question on notice.
[3] Council of the University of Southern Queensland,
Submission No. 79, p. 3.
[4] National Union of Students response to question
on notice.
[5] ibid
[6] NUS (WA) Branch, Submission No. 122, p.
2.
[7] Australian Vice-Chancellors' committee response
to questions on notice
[8] Edith Cowan University Postgraduate Student
Association, Submission No. 197, p. 3.
[9] Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee,
Submission No.89, p.8
[10] Northern Territory University, Submission
No. 78, p.3.
[11] Redfern Legal Centre/University of Sydney
SRC, Submission No. 190, p. 5.
[12] Federation of Community Legal Centres
(Victoria) inc, Submission No. 169, p.4.
[13] Federation of Community Legal Centres
(Victoria) inc, Submission No. 169, p.4.
[14] ibid
[15] NSW Council for Civil Liberties, Submission
No.48, p.1.
[16] ibid
[17] City of Greater Bendigo, Submission no.
170, p. 1.
[18] NSW Council for Civil Liberties, Submission
No.48, p.1.
[19] Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce & industry
Ltd., Submission No. 56, p. 1.
[20] Ms Leslie Barry Bishop, Submission No.158,
p. 3-4.
[21] Australian Young Nationals at the Australian
National University, Submission No.173, p.2.
[22] ibid
[23] Queensland Minister for Education, Submission
No. 55, p.11-12.
[24] Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee,
Submission No. 89, p. 10.
[25] National Union of Students, response to
Questions on Notice
[26] Ambassador Ali Kazak, Head of Delegation
to Australia and Ambassador of Palestine to Vanuatu, in correspondence
to the Chair of Senate Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business
and Education Committee, 10 May, 1999.
[27] Mr Dan Scheiwe, Submission No. 03, p.1.
[28] Victorian Liberal Students Federation,
Submission No. 202.
[29] Dr Bob Such, Parliament of South Australia
Hansard, 11 March, 1999.
[30] NSW Council for Civil Liberties, Submission
No. 48, p. 2
[31] Queensland Minister for Education, Submission
No. 55, p. 2
[32] House of Representatives, Hansard, 1995.
[33] Coalition Higher Education Policy
document, 1996
[34] Victorian Liberal Students Federation,
Submission No. 202, p 6.
|
