Australian Greens' Report
Additional Comments
The Australian Greens share the concerns outlined in the
main committee report relating to the Government package being a radical shift
in university funding from the government to the student and their families. We
support the concerns outlined in the main report relating to the impact of fee
deregulation on students, the lack of indexation, the prescriptive workplace
relations and governance reforms and the proposals to introduce anti-student
organisation legislation.
Additional comments and recommendations from the Australian
Greens fall into 5 categories:
- The
privatisation and corporatisation of higher education;
- Public
funding of universities;
- The
contribution of student organisations to political life;
- Regional
universities’ contribution to their local communities; and
- Financial
support for students living and studying needs.
1. The privatisation and corporatisation of higher education
Chapter 3 of the main committee report discusses the
possible implication following from the lack of the word university in the
detail of the legislation and the general emphasis in the legislation towards
putting in place the mechanisms for a purchaser-provider model for higher
education.
There was some discussion during the public hearings of the
inquiry about the increasing ease with which private providers can access
public subsidies and funding.
Dr Guille, Queensland State Secretary of the National
Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) said in Brisbane to the committee:
I am concerned, however, about public subsidies being provided
even to the private universities. We are more concerned about the growth of
second-tier franchise type institutions, of which there is a number around this
area of Brisbane, and whether they should receive public subsidy. As I said,
some of the Christian fundamentalist
ones have not fulfilled the test of being a university.
This issue was further discussed by the NTEU at the Canberra
hearings where the comment was made that:
You can bet your bottom dollar that if we start opening up
subsidies to private providers we will have an increase in applications for
university status. Some of them may be justified but I am quite sure that some
of them will not be as well. There is no consistent, clear, national rigorous
process that this package sets out that deals with that, and that is a real
concern for the union. That is something that we would like to stress quite
strongly. The legislation does make some sort of capacity for AUQA to be the vetting body for private
providers, as one of the hurdles that private providers will have to get over
to get funding. That is not why AUQA was set up. That is not its
mandate, and more work has to be done in this area.
During public hearings discussion often focussed on the
impact for universities of a withdrawal of government funding and where they
would source replacement funds from. Beyond perceiving students as a funding
source there was some discussion about universities responding to the
withdrawal of government funding by approaching corporations to make up the
shortfall.
The dangers of such an approach were highlighted by many
witnesses.
Ms Mills, of the Curtin Student Guild made another
suggestion for how businesses could contribute to the cost and benefits they
receive from higher education:
... it is not that we do not think that business should pay or
contribute towards universities—because at the end of the day they are
benefiting from graduates—it is what the businesses are actually getting out of
universities in that direct link. That is where we think that perhaps the
government should be the intermediary, getting that money from businesses,
taxing businesses perhaps, instead of taxing students more. That becomes the
intermediary, so that you do not have these compromises of educational quality
because business is contributing. But we are not arguing that business should
not contribute.
Earlier Ms Robinson, the President of UWA Student Guild
commented that:
The private sector can dictate a university's research priorities,
in exchange for funding. It ends up benefiting the industry more than the
university.
Students gave examples of the way in which a created reliance by a
university on corporate funding was impact on the quality of teaching and
research available at the institution.
Ms Loker, President of University of New England Student Association told
one such example:
At this university one student who was doing computer science
did an assignment on a Lotus
program, and the course coordinator refused to mark it because it was not done
on Microsoft Word. The student took that decision to the head of the school and
it was overturned and the course coordinators were forced to mark it. That is a
really clear example of the outrageous things that happen when private providers
become involved in a university; their profit agendas are what is behind their
very involvement in such institutions. I think it is disgusting.
Ms Coopes, President of Charles Sturt University Students Association
outlines the essential problem:
It is completely inappropriate to expect universities, whose
core businesses are learning and teaching, to go out into the corporate sector
to get funding for their core activities. Education is for the public good and
should be funded by the government.
Recommendation 1
That core funding be strictly limited to universities as defined in the
MYCEETA National Protocols. Any other Government funding to private higher
education providers should be limited to institutions which offer courses that
both achieve the relevant quality benchmark and cannot reasonably be supplied
by a local university.
2. Public funding of universities
The Australian Greens preface these remarks with the
endorsement of comment made to the committee by the Vice Chancellor of the University
of Technology in Sydney, Professor Ross Milbourne, when he said:
I cannot for the life of me understand why we cannot have the
same indexation that is given to the funding of public schools. If that
happened, most of the issues that might come out of this package would
evaporate...
The Australian Greens note the refusal of the Government to
provide for this indexation as a clear indication of an ideological shift in
the funding of universities from the public to the private, forcing as it does
universities to source core funding from students, their families and the
corporate sector.
The inability of the Government to recognise the
implications for quality, equity and independence that this model brings is
cause for serious concern. The Australian Greens therefore recommend that Professor
Milbourne’s advice be taken up and an indexation model be devised that plots
actual increases in the costs of providing tertiary education and for funding
to be adjusted accordingly.
The Australian Greens note that WCI model proposed by the
Chairs Report is an improvement on current practice but still fails to
accurately plot the rise in real costs.
Throughout the public hearings of this inquiry debate raged
about how our higher education sector should be funded. The clearest
distinction was between the Government model as proposed in the legislation
that students should pick up the tab for funding universities where the
government has left off and the view expressed by almost all witnesses that the
Federal Government needs to invest more public money into higher education.
During this discussion the public and private benefits of
higher education were much canvassed with several witnesses expressing to the
committee the view that higher education was a public good and should be funded
as such by the government.
Mr Vijayalingam Nellailingham, President of the
Students Association Campbelltown Campus Inc. outlines the position his
organisation:
The students association believes that education is a public
good, has always been a public good and should remain a public good. For these
reasons we believe that education should be properly and fully publicly funded.
We should have a free
education system.
A number of witnesses extolled the virtues of a progressive
taxation system including the submission from the executive of the NTEU, UNE
Branch ‘In short, stripping away the particularities of the present debate
reveals that we used to have a perfectly adequate system for extracting higher
proportions of tax from higher paid individuals: it was called a progressive
tax system.’
Mr McKay, President of the Council of Australian
Postgraduate Associations in his opening statement argued that:
progressive taxation should ensure that those who benefit
financially contribute back to the system and that it is illogical to condemn
those who do not benefit financially from their education to a lifetime of debt
and debt burden.
Recommendation 2
That an indexation process, similar to that applying to
government schools, be developed to ensure core funding keeps pace with the
real rise in the costs of running universities.
That HECS be abolished and all HECS debts be forgiven. That
future enrolment be selected on the basis of academic merit and potential only.
As noted in the main committee report, The Australian Greens
recommend that in circumstance where HECS remains the repayment threshold
should be set at average weekly earnings.
3. The contribution of student organisations to political life
The Australian Greens concur with the comments in chapter 5
of the main committee report regarding student organisations. The chapter
outlines the benefits that student organisations provide to campus life with a
particular emphasis on the service provision provided by student organisations.
The main report notes:
The Government’s moves against student organisations appear
motivated by the desire to weaken, if not eliminate, the likelihood of any
anti-government political movement among students.
Student organisations combine service provision with
representative responsibilities that include political representation and
advocacy support roles. The committee during the public hearings discussed with
students and vice-chancellors in particular issues surrounding the capacity and
willingness of universities or commercial operators to provide the services
that student organisations currently provide.
There was also some discussion about the advocacy and
representative work student organisations do.
Ms Caroline Vu, President of the UTS Student Association in
response to a question about the capacity of universities to pick up the
advocacy work that student organisations do said:
It is obviously not necessarily in the university's interests to
have students appealing decisions made by lecturers about exclusion, or even
grades. Universities would be able to take over services like gyms, cafeterias
and those sorts of things, if VSU were introduced. But, with things like
advocacy and appeals processes, there is no real reason why the university
would take over the services that our caseworkers provide. And there is really
no reason that students would want the university to take over that process.
Basically, the right to appeal a grade is a student right. I would not envisage
that the excellent work done by caseworkers in student unions could be
continued. Basically, lecturers would be much more able to make arbitrary
decisions in the university process without fear of retribution. As
appealing a grade is a student right, it would also be a roll-back of the
democracy of universities.
Whilst universities may feel compelled to pick up some of
the service provision student organisations currently provide if anti-student
organisation legislation was introduced, the question remains as to whether
universities would be in a position to or whether it would be appropriate that
they pick up the advocacy responsibilities currently carried out by student organisations.
The political representation that students organisations
provide was only touched on during the public hearings of the inquiry. In
response to a question about the impact of anti-student organisation
legislation, Professor Gavin Brown, Vice Chancellor of Sydney University said:
I think it would have a hugely negative effect—I really do. I am
perhaps a little more to the left of this issue than even many of my
colleagues. I seriously believe that experience in student politics or in the SRC—that kind of
thing—is enormously valuable both to the individuals who participate in it and
ultimately to the country in terms of the training and so on they get. Most
people are prepared to settle for saying that we want sport, debating and food
outlets, and we need to raise fees for that. I am prepared to go much further
and say that you should provide students with the opportunity to be engaged in
serious political involvement while they are students, because that is
ultimately to the net benefit of society.
It was significant to hear a prominent vice-chancellor such as Professor Brown
speak so supportively of the opportunities for political representation that
student organisations provide.
4. Regional universities’ contribution to their local communities
The voices from rural and regional communities and
universities that appeared before the committee spoke of the central role that
universities play in regional towns across the country.
Ms Coopes, President of Charles Sturt University Students
Association outlined the contribution that regional universities make to their
community.
Like no other industry, education has the ability to provide
sustainable development and improvement for a region. As a seven-campus
university which spans a series of diverse regional communities, CSU is a
unique demonstration of a truly regional university which engages extensively
with its regions. This goes beyond the fiscal benefits of employment and
economic flow. Regional universities serve their regions. They engage in
community projects, provide state-of-the-art facilities for local communities
and create cultural, intellectual and human traffic within and between regional
and metropolitan centres.
The elusive concept of the Australian identity is often referred
to in rural and regional terms. The little Aussie battler was born on a
property and, sadly, it seems that the little Aussie battle will remain there.
The regressive and draconian Nelson reforms, which create a two-tiered system,
deny regional Australians so much. They deny us access to a diverse and equally
valuable regional institution which will retain Australians in the regions by
choice. They deny many students access to university much more insidiously at
square one by pricing them out of youth allowance through a grossly unjust
means test, which counts land as an asset. They deny students from low
socioeconomic backgrounds the opportunity to escape the cycle of poverty by
making education a market driven commodity.
The `make the poor pay more' problem is endemic throughout the
proposed reforms. It is a harsh reality that regional universities will be
demoted to vocational specialist institutions which will be forced to raise
their fees in order to save their reputation or lower their fees to maintain
their mission of providing affordable options at the expense of quality and
sustainability. There is already a perception that those who charge more,
provide more. Emphasising the private benefits of tertiary education furthers
such elitist views.
Ms Loker, President of University of New England Student Association
counteracted the government position on regional universities succinctly in her
exchange with Senator Tierney:
Senator TIERNEY —That is why we have put a regional component in
the package.
Ms Loker —But the regional component does not make up for that
shortfall in funding.
The consequences of the package for employment in regional communities were
also canvassed.
Students from regional universities proposed mechanisms for keeping students
working in regional centres after their university studies.
Ms Loker, President of University of New England Student Association stated:
Having studied in the region prompts them to come back and work
in the region after they have graduated. I think that it ties in with the issue
of lack of diversity and lack of choice for regional communities. If we were to
take an approach that valued and encouraged diversity in the regions and
increased new subject areas in the regions, that could help to rectify the
problem as well, because we would have people studying medicine in Armidale. As
the statistic says, a lot more people would be more inclined to come back or
stay and work in the region they had graduated from.
Recommendation 3
That the Government recognise the special challenges that rural and
regional universities face and provide the additional costs incurred in meeting
those challenges. That these costs be reflected in a core funding formula that
gives appropriate weighting to regional and rural universities enabling these
institutions to deliver comprehensive course offerings and university environment.
5. Financial support for students living and studying needs
The Australian Greens note the universal recognition amongst the peak
representative bodies in the tertiary sector (AVCC, NUS, NTEU, CAPA) that
student financial hardship is worsening and that the Government can and should
do more to address the problem. The Australian Greens endorse the comments of
the AVCC in their study Paying Their Way: A Survey of Australian Undergraduate
Student Finances, 2000 when it states:
Government income-support programs are very important in
allowing less financially advantaged students to continue studying, but many
concerns were expressed that the level of income support is too low and that
access to the schemes is too restrictive. Austudy recipients are disadvantaged
compared with Youth Allowance recipients because they are not eligible for
‘rent assistance’. Because of the way in which the programs are structured,
Youth Allowance and Austudy recipients have a strong financial disincentive to
work more than about a day a week on average throughout the year. The total
income from income support and limited part-time work, combined with
educational expenses, leaves participants in these programs financially
vulnerable.[1]
The Australian Greens endorse
many of the recommendations made to the committee by the UNSW Student Guild as
a way to address these serious deficiencies.
Recommendation 4
That the Commonwealth Government replace Youth
allowance and Austudy with one simple payment that incorporates the following
measures;
- The age of independence be reduced to 18;
- The eligibility criteria should not be based upon previous
personal earnings;
- The personal income threshold (current set at $236 per fortnight,
without affecting benefit payments) should be increased to a more realistic
figure;
- The Parental Income Test cut-off threshold should be increased to
allow greater access to higher education;
- That same sex couples be recognised as de facto relationships for
the purposes of income support measures including student income support;
- All postgraduate awards are redefined as ‘approved
courses’ for the purposes of rent assistance;
- As
a minimum, provide students with benefits consistent with the Henderson
poverty line; and
- That
these benefits be indexed to the Consumer Price Index, with reference to the Henderson
poverty line.
And that ABSTUDY be maintained as a separate scheme,
and that within this payment structure:
- All
supplementary benefits, allowances and payments available under the ABSTUDY
scheme be maintained;
- All
payment structures be endorsed and approved by the relevant indigenous
community organisations;
- Any
future rationalisation of the ABSTUDY allowances only occur after sustained and
authentic dialogue with Indigenous communities across Australia;
and
- The
changes made to ABSTUDY in the 1997-1998 Commonwealth Budget be
reversed.
List of Recommendations
Recommendation 1
That funding be strictly limited to universities as defined in the MYCEETA
National Protocols. Government funding to private higher education providers
should be limited to institutions which offer courses that cannot reasonably be
supplied by a local university, and achieve the relevant quality benchmark.
Recommendation 2
That an indexation process, similar to that applying to
government schools, be developed to ensure core funding keeps pace with the
real rise in the costs of running universities.
That HECS be abolished and all HECS debts be forgiven. That
future enrolment be selected on the basis of academic merit and potential only.
As noted in the main committee report, The Australian Greens
recommend that in circumstance where HECS remains the repayment threshold
should be set at average weekly earnings.
Recommendation 3
That the Government recognise the special challenges that rural and regional
universities face and provide the additional costs incurred in meeting those
challenges. That these costs be reflected in a core funding formula that gives
appropriate weighting to regional and rural universities enabling these
institutions to deliver a comprehensive course offerings and university
environment.
Recommendation 4
- That
the Commonwealth Government replace Youth allowance and Austudy with one
simple payment that incorporates the following measures;
- The
age of Independence be reduced to 18;
- The eligibility criteria should not be based upon previous personal
earnings;
- The personal income threshold (current set at $236 per fortnight,
without affecting benefit payments) should be increased to a more realistic
figure; and
- The Parental Income Test cut-off threshold should be increased to allow
greater access to higher education;
- That same sex couples be recognised as de facto relationships for the
purposes of income support measures including student income support;
- All postgraduate awards are redefined as ‘approved courses’ for
the purposes of rent assistance;
- As a
minimum, provide students with benefits consistent with the Henderson poverty
line; and
- That
these benefits be indexed to the Consumer Price Index, with reference to the Henderson
poverty line.
And that ABSTUDY be maintained as a separate scheme, and
that within this payment structure:
- All
supplementary benefits, allowances and payments available under the ABSTUDY
scheme be maintained;
- All
payment structures be endorsed and approved by the indigenous community
organisations;
- Any
future rationalisation of the ABSTUDY allowances only occur after sustained and
authentic dialogue with Indigenous communities across Australia; and
- The
changes made to ABSTUDY in the 1997-1998 Commonwealth Budget be reversed.
The Australian Greens recommendations in the main
committee report noted.
That in order to meet the current levels of unmet demand
for a university place from qualified applicant and additional 50,000 full and
part-time commencing university places be created.
Senator Kerry Nettle
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page