Submission into the Senate inquiry into higher education funding and regulatory legislation

Prepared by Nick Fredman (Student Rights Advocate)
On behalf of
Student Representative Council
Southern Cross University

Phone: 02 6620 3044
Email: sra@src.scu.edu.au

PO Box 5220
East Lismore 2480

Summary 

The Southern Cross University (SCU) Student Representative Council (SRC) believes that the policy initiatives announced in Backing Australia’s Future (BAF) contains some positive elements, but on the whole are a set back for the rights of students and the future of higher education in Australia. This submission examines:

1.	Funding initiatives
2.	“VSU”
3.	the new scholarships
4.	policy alternatives.

Data from SCU is used where appropriate. While any increases in public funding is a welcome response to the funding crisis afflicting the sector, the government seems to have exaggerated, for political purposes, the actual amounts of real new funding in its proposals, including in the “regional loadings”, and there seems to seems to be a lack of will to commit the amount of public funding needed by the sector, particularly regional universities. Further the increasing deregulation of fees and the process whereby marginally funded places are converted to fully funded are likely to be detrimental. The imposition of so-called “voluntary student unionism” will have a major, and adverse effect on campus life at SCU. Policy alternative, whereby the public sector is prioritized with a more progressive taxation system, are briefly examined. 

1.	
Funding initiatives: exaggerated, inadequate and some detrimental attachments

One positive aspect of BAF was the apparent recognition that Australia’s universities face a funding crisis. One stark manifestation of this crisis is steadily increasing student:staff ratios, leading to decreasing quality of education for students and increasing levels of stress for staff. On the whole regional universities fare worse in this regard. SCU’s student:staff ratio was 17.0 in 1994 and 21.9 in 2001, and the university sits at a lowly number 26 out of Australia’s 38 universities. With great fanfare BAF announced a $1.5 billion injection into higher education. However detailed analysis by the NTEU showed that taking into account changes in funding models and the elimination of partly funded over enrolments, real new funding was in fact $753 million. Other aspects of BAF’s funding arrangements are either not as impressive as the government’s public relations campaign, or are in fact detrimental to the interests of students, staff and the great majority of the community. 

The detrimental effects of HECS fee deregulation

The above-mentioned NTEU paper shows that the Commonwealth Grants Scheme funding model will entail less commonwealth funding per student in 2005, as compared to a continuation of the current Block Operating Grants model, and to make up the shortfall universities will need to increase HECS by around 10%. The difference between the funding outcomes of the CGS and BOG models will be less in 2006, and from 2007 universities will receive slightly more per student under CGS (including the funding contingent on workplace and governance changes). Whatever universities decide to charge in HECS fees, the deregulated environment will adversely affect students in general and regional students in particular, and will be detrimental to the funding situation for regional universities. 

Data from 2001 summarized in an NTEU document shows that regional universities have a greater proportion of students from disadvantaged backgrounds, and SCU is no exception. The table below compares the SCU student population with the total Australian student population. 

	Students from NESB	Students with disability	Women in non-traditional area	Indigenous students	Rural and/or isolated	Low socio-economic status	
SCU	0.4%	4.8%	21.4%	2.2%	66.9%	16.7%	
Non-regional	4.2%	3.2%	21.7%	1.1%	12.4%	13.5%	

It can be seen that in most areas the SCU student population is significantly more disadvantaged than that of urban universities, and the table from which this data is extracted shows this to be the case across regional universities. 

The further marketisation of higher education will undoubtedly increase the inequalities in funding and resources between urban and regional universities. The DEST National Report on Higher Education 2001(the unexpurgated version) suggested that higher and differential rates of HECS introduced in 1997 dissuaded people from disadvantaged backgrounds from study. This recognition, the strong sense that regional universities are meant to be part of and serve their surrounding communities, and the effects of competition with larger and more prestigious institutions (that is, those having a stronger position in the new market), will make it difficult for regional universities to increase funding through increasing HECS levels. SCU has indicated that it is unlikely to raise fees above CPI. Hence regional universities will be faced with raising fees and making entrance more inequitable, or, more likely, face an initial (2005-6) real decline in funding per student and a long-term trend of declining funding relative to the larger urban institutions. 

It is also the case that many students complete part of their studies at a regional university before transferring to, or take some units in, a university in an urban centre. It could be argued that an important role of regional universities is to provide the relatively disadvantaged regional populations with equitable educational opportunities, both in terms of what the regional universities deliver and it terms of a providing a “leg-up” to further undergraduate and post-graduate study in other areas. Increased levels of HECS and other fees at larger and more prestigious institutions will be a disincentive for many students who wish to transfer or take further study, further eroding the choice available to students and prospective students from regional areas. 

Unpacking regional loading

One of the major problems of regional universities is long-term under funding, exacerbating the problem of the higher costs involved in delivering higher education in regional areas. Hence the announcement of loadings for regional campuses, with SCU’s Lismore campus receiving 5% and the Coffs Harbour campus 7.5%, was welcome in the budget. However in “unpacking” these figures, the increases are not as impressive as they first appear. 

The regional loading will only apply to internal students only, defined as all students undertaking all units of study through attendance at the institution in question. However SCU, like many regional Universities servicing large and diverse areas, has a high proportion of both external and “multi-modal” students. The numbers in each category are not precisely clear. In 2002 there were 4,325 external students out of a total of 11,234 students, or 38.5% of the total. This is a figure taken at enrollment, when students are classified as either external or internal. Approximately 20% of SCU students are multi-modal. It is reasonable to assume that most if not all of these multi-modal students are classified at enrollment as internal, as they attend classes in at least one unit, and many students initially enroll exclusively in units delivered internally and later choose the flexibility of studying some units externally. Hence it is likely that less than 50%, possibly only 45%, of SCU students will count towards the quantum of SCU’s regional loading. That is, the loading will be closer to 2.5% for Lismore campus and 3.75% for Coffs Harbour campus, and zero for Tweeds Heads campus, even though this campus services rural and regional areas. 

As delivering units externally entails significant costs, there seems to be no justification for excluding external and multi-modal students from the calculations for regional loading, apart from inflating the actual increases in funding that these loadings will entail for the purposes of public relations. We recommend therefore that this arbitrary exclusion be rescinded. 

IR and governance changes: needed funding at risk and problems that students and staff have that will be harder to address

The SRC is strongly opposed to the fact that $404 million worth of funding is conditional upon so-called “workplace reform” and changes to the governance of university. These changes are highly contentious and will be strongly resisted in the Senate and “on the ground” making this amount of the announced funding, and therefore possibly the whole package according to some statement’s of Brendan Nelson’s, very much in doubt. In any case staff unions have been staunch advocates of the rights of students of students, both at a general policy level and on the various university councils, boards and committees on which staff unionists are represented. For example at SCU staff/management relations are mediated in a Joint Consultative Forum, and union representatives have been willing to take up issues of concern to students on this body. Restrictions on the rights of staff to organise collectively will be strongly resisted by staff unions, and will create unnecessary conflict on campuses that can only be detrimental to students.  

The enforced changes to university governance are also unnecessary and anti-democratic. Currently there is a single student and two staff representatives on SCU’s governing council, which has a membership of 21. There is no room to cut back of staff and student representation, if this body is forcibly reduced to a size of 18, as BAF dictates. Further, if a student serving on this body is not meant to be representative of a “constituency”, as BAF also dictates, then this will reduce the already extremely limited extend to which students, the vast majority of the members of the university, can have a say on the institution’s leading body. 

Possible loss of marginally funded places in transition

One aspect of the budget that was universally called for and welcomed was the conversion of the currently marginally funded places (projected to be around 22 000 in 2003) to fully funded places (as a number of commentators have pointed out the government should not be too heartily congratulated on this as it is merely remedying the effects of the massive cuts of 1996). However it appears that Universities will be forced to reduce their over-enrollments to 2% of their student numbers before the funding is available in 2007, leading to considerable drops in enrollments in 2005 and 2006. The National Union of Students has estimated that the shortfall appears to be 15,200 of current HECS places, of which 58 are at SCU. While the latter is not a large number, in the context of a region suffering from considerable levels of unemployment and disadvantage, dozens of prospective students missing out on a university place is significant. 

Taking into account the changes in funding models, the elimination of partially funded places, and the contentious funding conditions, it appears that BAF offers scarcely $350 million of non-contingent new funding over 4 years. This is, by 2007, non-contingent Commonwealth funding will be about 4-5% higher than the $5.9 billion spent by the Commonwealth on Higher education in 2001. SCU will receive about 6-7% more non-contingent funding for Lismore campus and 7-9% for Coffs Harbour. To put these figures into context, government contribution to universities per EFTSU (exclusive of HECS) decreased from $11 687 in 1996 to $9,362 in 2001 (in 2002 prices), a decrease of nearly 20%. Taking into account HECS payments (significantly increased during this period), universities’ operating funds decreased by 9% from 1996–2001. Apart from the fact the new funding regime is tied to a number of detrimental features, the regional loadings as well as other funding “initiatives” will barely make up previous shortfalls, and will scarcely dent the funding crisis that already existed in 1996. 

2.	“VSU”: threat to the services that the SRC provides

The determination of the government, as outlined in BAF, to implement so-called voluntary student unionism will have a highly detrimental effect of the rights and welfare of students and the social and cultural landscape of Australian university campuses. Without the assurance of funding that universal membership of student associations provides, students would most likely lose their rights to representation, many free or heavily subsidised services, and avenues for involvement in a vast range of extra-curricular activities. 

In the context of a student population in which there is a high incidence of disadvantage, a university which is experiencing more than its share of the sector-wide funding crisis, and increasing difficulties for many recipients of government income support, the SCU SRC is obliged to play a wide ranging role in representation, advocacy and the provision of services. 

Representation

The SRC provides the means whereby students can elect representatives who can take their concerns to the university and to all levels of government, through lobbying, advocacy and advice related to university processes, and representation on various committees. Currently the SRC is negotiating procedures to strengthen and better resource student representation on School and Divisional Boards, which a number of Schools and Divisions have agreed to. More than 100 students are directly involved in the representation work of the SRC either as elected representatives or as participants in open committees that take up issues of concern to women students, queer students, disabled student, indigenous students, students who are parents as well as issues of higher education funding, fees and student income support. 

Free dental service

A free dental service was initiated as a joint venture between the SRC and the university in 1996, and has proved extremely popular, servicing some 1905 students in 2001. It is worth noting comments made by the dentist in his 2001 annual report:

This on campus dental service for the students of the Southern Cross University is an important and indispensable service for the student community who otherwise could not afford dental services.  This is now, after severe budget cuttings of the Commonwealth Dental Health Program, even more important than in previous years, as the students cannot be sent any more to the community Dental Health Centre

Copy and Print Shop

The SRC operates a Copy and Print Shop, which provides subsidised photocopying, laser printing, colour copying and printing, laminating, passport photos, book binding, scanning, typing service, CD burning, and  access to computers. 

The Copy and Print Shop is always in high demand, especially during assignment times when quite often the number of university-provided computers and photocopiers is not adequate. On occasions the number of customers can total 160 a day.

Pulp

The free student newspaper Pulp is the main communication students have within the university and is seen by many within the university and the broader community as being fundamental to student life. Dozens of students are involved in the production of the magazine each year and it has an estimated readership of 4000. 

Free Food

With ever-increasing cost of living and the low payments received by students on income support, the SRC has since 1999 provided a free, nutritious lunch, initially once per fortnight.  This service provided so popular that it was, in 2002, increased to once per week. On each occasion some 200–300 students avail themselves of this service. 

Child Care Subsidy

The SRC was instrumental in the setting up of the University Child Care Centre and continues to support parents/caregivers by way of a subsidy to those on low incomes.

Student Amenities

The SRC provides a well-used free tea and coffee service, with kitchen facilities available.  It is estimated that twenty people per hour access these facilities. Free spring water, safe sex products and newspapers are also available. 

Student Rights Advocate

In recognition that university processes, advice and help related to academic appeals, complaints and other problems that students may encounter were neither adequate nor could be independent, an SRC employee has since February this year provided advice, advocacy and research services. Over 70 students have utilised this service in the first six months of operation. 

Hence the forcible imposition of “VSU” onto SCU could mean the severe curtailment if not the collapse of a huge range of services and activities that considerably enhances students’ rights and welfare and considerably broadens their university experience. 

3.	“Equity” scholarships: problem of relationship 
with YA/Austudy

The scholarship initiatives in BAF are a welcome measure will help a number of individual students from disadvantaged backgrounds, but will not in themselves address one area of educational disadvantage that all students, and particularly those that study in regional universities, face, which is the lack of adequate funding. That is, the individual students’ needs may be helped, but they and other students will still suffer from inferior levels of staffing, equipment, library resources, and research opportunities. In addition the positive features of these scholarships are at risk of being completely over ridden by an apparent policy of the Department of Family and Community Services of counting the scholarships in the income means testing of Youth Allowance and Austudy, which for some recipients would make the scholarships completely worthless. The government needs to bring its warring departments to heel immediately if the package is not to become a complete farce.  

4.	Policy alternatives

The current government no doubt believes, along with its ideological forebear Margaret Thatcher, that “there is no alternative”. However any particular policy orientation is a matter of social and economic interests, and political will, not laws of nature. Higher education teaching and research cost in total about $8.8 billion in 2000, of which slightly less than half was provided by direct Commonwealth grants, and the rest from HECS, other fees and universities’ commercial and fundraising activities. That is, about $5 billion would be needed to make higher education, at its current level of staffing and resources, completely free and unreliant on corporate links. 

Is this impossible? Since 1983, company tax rates have been decreased from 49% to 30%, and the top rate of income tax reduced from 60% to 47%, with some of the difference taken up by the regressive GST, leading to transfers of tens of billions of dollars from ordinary people to the rich. It has been estimated that a reversal to 1983 tax rates would generate $50-70 billion in revenue. Reversing the increases in ‘defence’ spending implemented by the current government between 1996-2002 would save another $4 billion. These are sufficient funds to scrap the GST and revitalise welfare and the public sector, including making education completely free, greatly increasing staffing and resources, and providing an income support for all students at a level above the poverty line.