Bills Digest no. 107 2008–09
Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services
and Amenities, and Other Measures) Bill 2009
WARNING:
This Digest was prepared for debate. It reflects the legislation as
introduced and does not canvass subsequent amendments. This Digest
does not have any official legal status. Other sources should be
consulted to determine the subsequent official status of the
Bill.
CONTENTS
Passage history
Purpose
Background
Financial implications
Main provisions
Concluding comments
Contact officer & copyright details
Passage history
Date
introduced: 11 February
2009
House: House of Representatives
Portfolio: Education
Commencement:
The formal provisions
commence on Royal Assent, Schedules 2 and 3 the day after Royal
Assent. Schedule 1 commences six months from the day of Royal
Assent or earlier by Proclamation.
Links: The
relevant links to the Bill, Explanatory Memorandum and second
reading speech can be accessed via BillsNet, which is at http://www.aph.gov.au/bills/.
When Bills have been passed they can be found at ComLaw, which is
at http://www.comlaw.gov.au/.
The Bill has been referred to the Education, Employment and
Workplace Relations Committee for inquiry and report by 10 March
2009. Details of the inquiry are at
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/eet_ctte/higher_ed/index.htm
The Bill amends the Higher
Education Support Act 2003 (the Act) to:
- Allow higher education providers to charge students an annual
capped compulsory student services and amenities fee from 1 July
2009
- Introduce a new Higher Education Loan Program (HELP) category
for student amenities fees called Services and Amenities-HELP
(SA-HELP)
- Broaden the application of the Higher Education Loan Program
(HELP) category for Vocational Education and Training students
called VET FEE-HELP, and
- Provide that officers of Tertiary Admission Centres (TACs) have
the same status and duty of care as those of higher education
providers in relation to processing student information.
The Bill also amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936
to account for the new SA-HELP provisions.
Background Student services and amenities
fee
The issue of student services and amenities fees, also called
student union fees, has been before Parliament on many occasions
most recently with the Higher Education Support Amendment
(Abolition of Compulsory Upfront Student Union Fees) Bill 2005
which was passed by the Parliament in December 2005.[1] It was the third attempt
by the Howard Government to abolish compulsory student union fees.
The first was the Higher Education Legislation Amendment Bill 1999,
which did not progress through the Senate. Then, in September 2003,
the Howard Government introduced the Higher Education Support
Amendment (Abolition of Compulsory Up-front Student Union Fees)
Bill 2003 as part of its higher education reform package,
Backing Australia s Future. This Bill did not proceed
beyond the second reading.[2]
The effect of the Higher Education Support Amendment
(Abolition of Compulsory Upfront Student Union Fees) Act 2005,
is that section 19-37 of the Higher Education Support Act
(the Act) prevents a higher education provider requiring a student
to be a member of a student association, union or guild and
prevents a compulsory fee for facilities, amenities or services
that are not of an academic nature. Compliance with VSU legislation
is a condition of continued approval as a higher education provider
and a condition of Commonwealth grants to providers.
To allay concerns of National Party Senators and Senator
Fielding on the impact of VSU on regional campuses and on
recreational and sporting activities, the Howard Government
provided $100 million of transition funding to universities through
three competitive funding programmes.[3] The VSU Transition Fund for
Recreational and Sporting Facilities, allocated $85 million for 44
projects,[4] the
Small Businesses on Regional Campuses Fund allocated $5 million for
19 projects,[5] and
the Regional University Sport Programme is providing $10 million
over four years to Australian University Sport (AUS).
However the Australasian Campus Union Managers Association
(ACUMA) and AUS concluded the grants available from the VSU
Transition Fund do not address the shortfalls in recurrent funding
and provide only temporary respite from the pressing capital needs
of the sector .[6]
In November 2007, after one year of VSU, AUS and ACUMA reported
an annual reduction of $166 million in funding from amenities and
services fees (they expected this to rise to $200 million in 2009),
a loss of 1000 jobs (or a reduction in employment of 30 per cent),
increased direct charges to students and user pays charges
increasing in most cases above the Consumer Price Index
(CPI).[7]
In February 2008, the Hon Kate Ellis MP, Minister for Youth,
undertook consultations with and invited submissions from
stakeholders on the impact of the current VSU policy. The
Impact of Voluntary Student Unionism on Services, Amenities and
Representation for Australian University Students Summary
Report concluded:
Most submissions concluded that the abolition
of upfront compulsory student union fees had impacted negatively on
the provision of amenities and services to university students,
with the greatest impact at smaller and regional universities and
campuses.
Many noted that the introduction of VSU had
forced rationalisations, and that current levels of services were
more limited than had previously been the case.
In many instances, assistance was provided by
the university but these funds were redirected from other uses such
as teaching, learning or research.
While a user‐pays model worked for some
services (e.g. food and beverage outlets), it was reported that
this type of delivery commonly resulted in increased costs to
individual students.
Many submissions put forward the view that VSU
had resulted in a lessening of the vibrancy, diversity and, to some
extent, the attractiveness of university life.
VSU had commonly resulted in an increase in
fees, which had led to a decrease in the number of clubs and/or in
club membership.
While most submissions focussed on the negative
effects of VSU on student services and amenities, some institutions
did report some benefits. These included the streamlining and more
efficient delivery of services to suit student needs, the opening
up of the provision of services to a commercial model, and
consultation with students to determine what could be defined as
essential services.
Most submissions indicated that the capacity
for student advocacy and democratic student representation had been
significantly reduced since VSU.
Submissions reported that, at a number of
universities, there was no longer a student union. In other
instances, a number of student groups had been merged into one
body.
Some institutions commented that there had been
benefits from VSU in terms of student representation and, in
particular, that representation was now from a broader
base.[8]
The Australian Labor Party in opposition promised to restore
campus amenities, services and student representation free from
Government dictates and interference . In the ALP s white paper on
education, shadow spokesperson, Jenny Macklin, proposed that the
provision and funding of services would be formulated through
compact negotiations between the university and Government , and
that the financial imposition on students will not increase.
Additionally as part of the compact negotiations universities would
need to demonstrate that an independent, democratic and securely
funded student representative body exists .[9]
Following the ALP s National Conference in May 2007 the shadow
spokesperson Stephen Smith outlined the party s policy:
I made it clear at the National Conference, and
this was acknowledged by a number of delegates, that it wasn t
appropriate for Labor, and Labor would not be able to go back to
the pre-Voluntary Student Unionism world and that was accepted by
the Conference and accepted by delegates.
Labor s priority here is to do two things as
outlined in the Platform: Firstly, to ensure that students, if they
so choose, can voluntarily organise themselves into representative
organisations. Secondly, and more importantly, that all students
have access to decent amenities and services, whether that s
sporting facilities, cultural facilities, child-care facilities and
the like.
The funding of those services has been a matter
of conversation between me and the Universities. I believe that the
Commonwealth, the Government of the day, has a responsibility,
together with the Universities, to fund those services and of
course it s also appropriate for students, if they so choose, to
make a voluntary contribution to those services, or indeed to be
charged a fee if that is appropriate when they use those services
such as sporting facilities, gyms and the like.
To a journalist s question Stephen Smith stated I certainly do
not have on my list an extension of HECS, either voluntary or
compulsory, to fund these services. So I absolutely rule that out I
believe that these services should be provided either by the
Universities, or by the Commonwealth or both .[10]
The Bill implements the general thrust of the policy to restore
services and student representation without a return to the
pre-Voluntary Student Unionism world . However the compulsory fee,
the proposed SA-HELP, the lack of government funding and the degree
of government regulation and compliance are major diversions from
the government s policy in opposition.
Following the government s consultation on the impact of VSU the
Minister, the Hon Kate Ellis announced that
From 1 July 2009, universities will be allowed
to set a compulsory fee, capped at a maximum of $250 with
indexation each year, to help rebuild student amenities and student
services To help students manage the fee the Australian Government
will provide access to a HECS style loan under the Higher Education
Loan Program (HELP). SA HELP will allow eligible students to defer
the payment of the fee if they choose.
The Minister stressed that this was not a return to compulsory
student unionism and the provision which prohibits a university
from requiring a student to be a member of a student organisation
will remain . The Minister also announced a new requirement for
universities to meet national benchmarks relating to access to
student support services and fulfil new representation and advocacy
protocols .[11]
The Bill is not proposing to reintroduce student union fees in
that funds will be administered by higher education providers
rather than student unions. Furthermore providers must not spend
the collected funds to provide support to a political party or to
support a candidate for political office.[12] However the Bill is proposing that a
capped student amenities fee can be charged by a higher education
provider and made compulsory. Consequently the reaction to the Bill
is framed within the context of previous debates on compulsory
student union fees. These debates go back to the Whitlam Government
s proposal that the Commonwealth assume full responsibility for
financing higher education. Tuition fees were to be abolished, but
student representative council, union and sports fees would remain
the responsibility of the student, to be collected by the
institution.[13]
Journalist Charles Richardson, a life member of the Australian
Liberal Students Federation, argues VSU arouses political passions
out of all proportion to its intrinsic importance. It is also a
peculiarly fossilised debate, since positions on both sides were
set some 30 years ago when university funding arrangements, not to
mention the ideological landscape in general, were very
different.[14]
Political passions have again arisen in the current debate with the
Coalition describing the proposed legislation as having the same
stench as Compulsory Student Unionism .[15]
Australasian Campus Union Managers Association (ACUMA),
Australian University Sport (AUS) and Universities Australia have
welcomed the Bill as a means of restoring student services.[16] Universities Australia
has called for the government to implement the policy commitment to
a new student services and amenities fee through successful
negotiation of passage of the legislation and speedy implementation
of the policy .[17]
However successful negotiation of passage of the legislation may
prove difficult. The Australian Liberal Students Federation is
running an online campaign against the legislation and is reported
to be pressuring cross bench senators to block the Bill.[18] Other student groups,
including the National Union of Students and the Council of
Australian Postgraduate Associations are concerned over the
provisions that prevent funds going directly to student
associations.[19]
Their concerns have some support from the Greens who are also
calling for more effective student advocacy.[20]
The Coalition policy is to oppose the Bill.[21] National Party Senators may be
crucial to the passage of the Bill. Senator Barnaby Joyce crossed
the floor in the 2005 vote on the Higher Education Support
Amendment (Abolition of Compulsory Upfront Student Union Fees)
Bill. In 2005 Senator Joyce supported the abolition of compulsory
student union fees and prohibiting the use of fees for political
activities but argued for fees to fund amenities and services such
as those proposed in the current Bill.[22] Senator Joyce is reported to again be
considering crossing the floor suggesting other Nationals may join
him in abandoning the Liberal Party s holy grail of voluntary
student unionism because it had been a fiasco that had punished
country students who enjoyed playing sport .[23]
The Bill does not propose a return to compulsory student union
membership. Therefore the argument that compulsory student union
membership infringes upon the fundamental right to freedom of
association in this respect is irrelevant. However it could be
argued that the compulsory fee constitutes a subsidy for services
that the student may not wish to utilise. For example, many
part-time and external students may never use the facilities and
services, but still have to pay the annual charge. Universities
Australia argue that not all students may use these services during
their study, but is firmly of the view that it is better for all
students to contribute to the provision of the services, which are
then available to all, than to not have the services available to
those who need them. Additionally, such services will provide a
safety net for those students who had begun their study with no
need for the services, but whose situations change for the worse
during the course of their study .[24]
The proposal not to return to a system where student unions
received the bulk of the funds and provided most of the services is
cause for debate. The Newcastle University Students Association
(NUSA) point out that this legislation does not prohibit
universities from funding student organisations. However, student
organisations which are properly performing their role, including
holding universities to account, are unlikely to attract funding
from the university as this represents a conflict of interest
.[25] The Council
of Australian Postgraduate Associations (CAPA) argue that student
representation and academic advocacy can only be effective where it
is truly independent, and that it cannot be truly independent where
the university has discretionary control over 100% of student money
under this fee. [26] CAPA recommends that the Guidelines should require
providers to make a fixed amount or proportion of the fee directly
to student organisations and that provisions that prevent that
should be deleted from the Bill.[27]
Universities Australia welcomes the freedom to contract services
to providers other than student unions as the Unions may not be the
most appropriate providers of these services and amenities
envisaged by this Amendment. [28]
A 2004 Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee survey found
student services and amenities charges ranged from $100 to more
than $350. The median was in the range $200 to $250.[29] The fees raised $172.8
million of which $24.8 million or 14 per cent was spent on
advocacy, representation and political activity.[30] In 2007 there were 664,381
full-time students and 312,405 part-time students at Australia s
public universities. Assuming universities charge full-time
students $250 and part-time students $125 the fees would raise $205
million. With the restriction on payments for political activity
this should be sufficient to reinstate a range of services at most
universities. Those universities which charged more than $300 in
2004 may need to provide additional funds from other sources of
income. ACUMA is concerned that the $250 cap will be inadequate if
the government s intent is that the capped fee also provide for the
on-going capital infrastructure needs (inclusive of deferred
maintenance liabilities on existing buildings and
construction/acquisition of new buildings and grounds/facilities)
of the campus services sector .[31]
An alternative view is put by the University of Queensland Union
which opposes the introduction of the services and amenities fee:
VSU has not resulted in a lessening of campus culture or available
services and activities ... The UQ Union has been able to maintain
all essential representational and advocacy services that were
provided before VSU and is constantly investing in new areas that
will encourage further involvement and awareness of the Union s
services .[32]
The Bill in new section 19-38 proposes to prohibit student
services and amenities funds supporting political parties or the
campaigns of those seeking political office. Higher education
providers will be given further guidance on the legitimate
disbursements of funds in the proposed Student Services and
Amenities Fee Guidelines (the Fee Guidelines ).[33] The proposed Fee Guidelines,
released by the Minister on 19 February 2009, allow support of a
range of activities including clubs and societies .[34] Universities may find
they are in conflict with the new legislation if the activities of
such clubs and societies are interpreted as supporting a political
party. As the Australian Liberal Students Foundation points out:
There are numerous student organisations that are political in
nature that will be eligible to receive monies compulsorily
acquired from students, as the majority of political groups on
campus would not meet these requirements In fact, the Australian
Liberal Students Federation will not be prevented from obtaining
money from a student organisation, as it is not a political party
per se .[35]
This may have been a legitimate concern if the amendment to
introduce SA-HELP had not been introduced. Over a three year degree
a full-time student will pay a maximum $750. Universities Australia
has calculated that this will represent 3.6% of the total HELP debt
of a graduating student with an average HELP debt of
$20,579.[36]
Income contingent loans (ICLs) for
students such as those that have been available in the higher
education sector for some time were extended to the vocational
education and training (VET) sector in 2007 under the Higher
Education Support Amendment (Extending Fee-Help for VET Diploma,
Advanced Diploma, Graduate Diploma and Graduate Certificate
Courses) Act 2007. The loan scheme was introduced by the
Australian Government as part of its agenda to increase
productivity, address skills shortages and assist students with the
cost of studying. It has been introduced at a time when all
governments operating within tight budgetary constraints have been
looking to increase private sources of investment in VET to meet
the skills and training needs of a growing economy.
However, VET FEE-HELP, as the loans
are known, have been introduced in a limited way. They have only
been made available for full-fee courses at the Diploma, Advanced
Diploma, Graduate Diploma, and Graduate Certificate level. Other
conditions on accessing them include that the provider must be a
corporate body and that arrangements need to be put in place
between the approved VET provider and a higher education provider
to credit the qualification towards a higher education
award.[37]
The amendments
provided for in this Bill seek to broaden access to VET FEE-HELP
essentially by reducing the level of legislative prescription on
eligibility by allowing more flexibility through the use of the VET
FEE-HELP Guidelines. Specifically the amendments relate to the
value of the loan debt and the eligibility of courses and students.
In future these requirements will be provided for in the VET
FEE-HELP Guidelines. As legislative instruments, the VET FEE-HELP
Guidelines do not require the same level of Parliamentary scrutiny
as legislation, and can therefore be more flexibly adapted.[38]
Measures that would allow for a reduction in
the value of a student s loan debt and that would relax the credit
transfer requirements for eligible courses are explicit in the
amendments proposed by this Bill.
However, less explicit in the Bill and supporting documentation
are the conditions under which the loan debts might be reduced, the
credit transfer arrangements relaxed, and what might be the
circumstances that would lead to establishing different
requirements for different students or ones that may relate only to
some students taking a particular unit of study. These details will
only be clarified when the proposed new Guidelines are circulated
for public consultation. At such a time any administrative issues
associated with proposed changes may also become clearer.
The Explanatory Memorandum does however indicate that
its immediate application would be to fulfil the Commonwealth s
commitment to Victoria to provide income contingent loans to
eligible students, studying Government-subsidised diploma and
advanced diploma courses .[39] This is being done in support of that State s package
of VET reforms; the Commonwealth has offered similar support to any
other State that pursues reform in VET.[40] The proposed amendments would
therefore enable the Guidelines to be redrafted to allow for
government-subsidised students to receive these loans for specified
courses.
Advocates of income contingent loans for VET regard their
introduction into the sector as a matter of equity. They argue that
VET students are disadvantaged by having to pay up-front fees
because unlike higher education students, they have no access to
such loans. On the other hand critics of their introduction into
the VET sector have expressed their concerns that access to such
loans would lead to substantial increases in what are currently,
relatively low fees for VET students, thereby increasing the burden
on individual VET students.[41] They argue therefore that rather than expanding
participation in VET they may act as a barrier.[42]
In addition, the risk to the Commonwealth government associated
with fee increases brought about by state and territory governments
was acknowledged in one of the key reports advocating income
contingent loans for VET:
The Commonwealth government has
traditionally not been directly involved in TAFE and it would need
to be satisfied that the risks associated with, for example, the
level of fees being raised, have been fully thought
through.[43]
At this stage the estimated fiscal impact provided in the
Explanatory Memorandum of approximately $5 million in each
of the first two years (p.3) is only based on the application of
the measure to Victoria, which at this stage, is the only State to
have introduced such reforms.
There is no indication at this stage that VET FEE-HELP will be
extended in the future to courses other than government-subsidised
Diploma and Advanced Diploma courses. Despite the amendments in
this Bill there would have to be further legislative changes if VET
FEE-HELP were to be introduced for other than Diploma, Advanced
Diploma, Graduate Diploma, and Graduate Certificate level
courses.
For the financial impact of the SA-HELP and VET FEE-HELP
measures see the Explanatory Memorandum. The Tertiary Admission
Centres measure will have nil financial impact.
Schedule 1 amends the Act and deals with the proposed student
services and amenities fee.
Item 4 adds three new subsections to section
19-37 of the Act. Proposed subsection 19-37(4)
allows providers to charge a compulsory student services and
amenities fee. Proposed subsection 19-37(5)
defines the student services and amenities fee amount which must be
determined in accordance with the Student Services and Amenities
Fee Guidelines (the Fee Guidelines). The guidelines are made under
section 238-10 of the Act and are disallowable instruments.
Proposed Fee Guidelines were released by the Minister on 19
February 2009.[44]
Proposed paragraph 19-37(5)(e) sets an upper limit of $250 for
annual fees from 2010, though this limit is indexed.
The Bill does not change existing subsection 19-37(1) which
prohibits a higher education provider requiring a person to be a
member of a student organisation.
Item 5 proposes a new section
19-38 that defines the spending of student services and
amenities fees. The fees cannot be used to support, or to pay a
person or organisation to support, a political party or the
election of a person to a Commonwealth, State or Territory
legislature; or to a local government body. Political party is not
defined under the Bill or existing Act. Proposed subsection
19-38(3) limits the spending of the student services and
amenities fees to purposes specified in the Student Services and
Amenities Fee Guidelines (the Fee Guidelines ).
The Fee Guidelines will be vital if providers are to
successfully comply with the legislation. The proposed Fee
Guidelines include seventeen categories of allowable services and
amenities and states:
Allowable uses of the fee in relation to
services and amenities may include the categories listed below. In
all cases the purpose would include but not be limited to, the
direct provision of the service or amenity, the provision of
infrastructure (including new construction) and subsidies that
would reduce the price that students may have to pay.
Already Universities Australia and CAPA have identified a range
of services that they consider should be added to the list.
Consultation with higher education providers will be necessary to
ensure the final Fee Guidelines introduced are not in a form that
requires numerous amendments.[45]
Item 6 proposes a new section
19-67 requiring higher education providers that receive
funding under the Commonwealth Grants Scheme to comply, from 2010,
with Student Services, Amenities, Representation and Advocacy
Guidelines (the Advocacy Guidelines ). The Advocacy Guidelines will
detail the National Access to Services Benchmarks, and require
providers to provide information on, and access to, non academic
student support services. The Advocacy Guidelines will also include
National Student Representation and Advocacy Protocols to ensure
there are opportunities for students to be part of institutional
decision making and have access to advocacy services.[46] The Advocacy
Guidelines will be made under section 238-10 of the Act and will be
disallowable instruments. Proposed subsection
19-67(4) states subsection 19-65(1) does
not apply in relation to the Student Services, Amenities,
Representation and Advocacy Guidelines. 19-65(1) of the Act states
A higher education provider must comply with the requirements of
this Act, the regulations and the Guidelines made under section
238-10 . The National Union of Students in its submission to the
Senate Inquiry on the Bill expresses some concern that the Advocacy
Guidelines are not legally enforceable: NUS is somewhat mystified
why these Guidelines should be exempted from the compliance
requirement of the Act .[47] The National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) also seeks
clarification as to the purpose of clause (4) under proposed
Section 19-67, which appears to remove the Student Services,
Amenities, Representation and Advocacy Guidelines from compliance
requirements for higher education providers .[48] Certainly neither the Second
reading Speech nor the Explanatory Memorandum provide any rationale
for the exemption.
Item 10 proposes a new Part
3-5 that introduces a new Higher Education Loan Program
(HELP) category for student services and amenities fees called
Services and Amenities-HELP (SA-HELP).
SA-HELP will allow eligible students to defer the payment of the
student services and amenities fees if they choose and add it to
other income contingent HELP loans taken during their study.
Schedule 2 VET
FEE-HELP
Schedule 2 amends the Act and deals with with the broadening of
access to VET FEE-HELP.
Items
1 and 2 would allow for the VET FEE-HELP
Guidelines to specify the conditions under which a less than 120
per cent debt is incurred by a VET FEE-HELP loan. Currently the
loan debt is 120 per cent, of which 20 per cent is a loan fee.
Items
3-7 in the Bill would effectively relax the credit
transfer provisions. Item 3 removes the credit
transfer conditions from the Minister s requirements to approve a
body corporate as a VET provider. These requirements will then be
dealt with through guidelines.
The credit
transfer arrangements for courses are also being relaxed. Currently
under paragraph 45(1)(a) the course requirements for VET
FEE‑HELP assistance for a VET unit of study include that the
unit is being undertaken as part of a VET course of study
that meets any requirements set out in the VET FEE‑HELP
Guidelines relating to VET credit transfer arrangements .
Item 5 removes the reference to credit transfer in
paragraph 45(1)(a). Item 6 then inserts a new
section 45(1A) which would allow with respect to the arrangements
for courses provided under the amended paragraph 45(1)(a), which
are no longer limited by credit transfer arrangements, that the VET
FEE-HELP guidelines can set out different requirements for
different students and requirements that may relate only to some
students taking a particular unit of study.
Schedule 3 amends the Act and deals with Tertiary Admission
Centres (TACs)
Schedule 3 provides that officers of Tertiary
Admission Centres (TACs) have the same status and duty of care as
those of higher education providers in relation to processing
students personal information. According to the Department of
Education, Employment and Workplace Relations this will ensure that
student information may be shared between the Department, higher
education providers, VET providers, and TACs as appropriate and be
governed by the appropriate privacy safeguards. [49]
The issue of student amenities fees has historically generated
passionate debate, both in parliaments and in the public domain,
much of it centred on the issue of student unionism and the
compulsory payment of fees to student organisations. The Bill
implements a middle path in the policy debate. It meets a
government promise to restore campus amenities, services and
student representation which have been heavily cut since the Howard
Government enacted the 2005 voluntary student unionism legislation
without restoring compulsory student unionism. However it does
propose a compulsory fee which will be administered by higher
education providers who must in turn comply with the provisions of
the Higher Education Support Act and the requirements of
the Advocacy Guidelines and the Fee Guidelines made under the Act.
The compulsory element of the fee will continue to generate debate
of a philosophical and ideological nature. However Parliament may
need to scrutinise the details in the Bill and the proposed
Advocacy Guidelines and Fee Guidelines to ensure that higher
education providers have clarity in their administration of the
student services and amenities fees and compliance with the
legislation.
Members, Senators and Parliamentary staff can obtain further
information from the Parliamentary Library on (02) 6277
2709.
[1]. More detailed background on this issue can be
found in Kim Jackson, Voluntary Student Unionism,
Parliamentary Library Background Note, SP006, 30 November 2004
http://libiis1/Library_Services/BN/Education/sp006.doc.
This link is for internal Parliamentary users only. However, some
of this background material is also available in the Bills Digest
at http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bd/2003-04/04bd058.htm
See also Peter McDonald et al,
VSU Impact Study: a Study on the Impact of Voluntary Student
Unionism Legislation at Universities across Australia,
Australian University Sport, Milton Qld, February 2008, Chapter 4
Background to the VSU Legislation, http://www.acuma.org.au/Media/downloads/80_16200849022522_82.pdf
accessed 20 February 2009.
[2]. In 1996 the Howard Government had also introduced
the Higher Education Funding Amendment Bill (No.2) 1996 to
repeal provisions providing Commonwealth assistance to student
organisations where State or Territory legislation had prevented
the imposition of student organisation fees. The Bill was referred
to the Senate Employment, Education and Training Legislation
Committee, which reported in October 1996. The Committee
recommended that the Bill be passed without amendment, although
this view was disputed by the Opposition and Democrat Senators on
the committee. The Bill did not proceed through the
Senate.
[43]. Bruce Chapman, Mark Rodrigues and Chris Ryan, HECS for
TAFE: the case for extending income contingent loans to the
vocational education and training sector , Treasury working
paper, 2007-2, Treasury, 2007, p. 41,
http://www.treasury.gov.au/contentitem.asp?NavId=&ContentID=1252,
accessed on 20 February 2009.
Coral Dow, Carol Kempner
6 March 2009
Bills Digest Service
Parliamentary Library
© Commonwealth of Australia
This work is copyright. Except to the extent of uses permitted
by the Copyright Act 1968, no person may reproduce or transmit any
part of this work by any process without the prior written consent
of the Parliamentary Librarian. This requirement does not apply to
members of the Parliament of Australia acting in the course of
their official duties.
This work has been prepared to support the work of the Australian
Parliament using information available at the time of production.
The views expressed do not reflect an official position of the
Parliamentary Library, nor do they constitute professional legal
opinion.
Feedback is welcome and may be provided to: web.library@aph.gov.au. Any
concerns or complaints should be directed to the Parliamentary
Librarian. Parliamentary Library staff are available to discuss the
contents of publications with Senators and Members and their staff.
To access this service, clients may contact the author or the
Library’s Central Entry Point for referral.
Back to top