Slim pickings for uni politics

Slim pickings for uni politics
Drew Warne-Smith
March 18, 2005

The Australian

ABOUT a third of the money raised by student union fees at one of Australia's leading universities is used for building and sportsfield maintenance and cleaning, while less than 10 per cent is allocated to student politics.

With new laws banning compulsory membership of student unions about to strip them of millions of dollars in revenue, The Australian has conducted an analysis of the 2003 fee structure at the University of Sydney.

The snapshot reveals $15.2 million was raised through the average annual union levy of about $550 per student. The university has about 47,000 students, although not all pay the same union fee.

The money was distributed between six distinct student bodies: the University of Sydney Union, Sydney University Sport, the Student Representative Council, the postgraduate association and student guilds at the Cumberland campus and the College of the Arts.

The USU, responsible for catering, welfare, entertainment, clubs and societies, and the upkeep of union-owned buildings, gets the lion's share, about $8.1 million.

Like the sports body, it generates much more income through commercial enterprises: leasing space, catering, sponsorships and other schemes. This earned the USU an extra $16 million in 2003.

But that year about $3.5 million – more than a third of its revenue from union fees – was absorbed by the upkeep of amenities, cleaning and the provision of basic supplies such as toilet paper and water.

The union-subsidised catering service, which cost it $8.2 million, was run at a loss of almost $1 million. The SRC, the students' more contentious political wing, was allocated just $1.8 million.

Rose Jackson said the SRC did not have any other streams of income, and the majority was used to fund staff, and the student newspaper Honi Soit. Just 3 per cent of its budget, about $50,000, was spent on campaigns, the SRC president said.

Sydney University Sport turns over about $10 million a year, of which $3.3 million – or $144 from every undergraduate – comes from student fees.

Half of that, about $1.6 million, is spent on maintaining playing fields and sporting facilities. Even more, about $2 million, is paid to the university's 44 sporting clubs and elite athletes on scholarship programs, which boast Wallabies Brendan Cannon, Phil Waugh, Phil Vickerman and David Lyons in their ranks.

Unions fail on childcare costs: Nelson

Unions fail on childcare costs: Nelson
Samantha Maiden
March 18, 2005

The Australian

CHILDCARE centres funded by student unions are often more expensive than comparable creches, and they are filled with the children of university staff, federal Education Minister Brendan Nelson said yesterday.

Seizing on a report of childcare services at Australian universities prepared by the University of NSW, Dr Nelson said it was clear many students would be better off keeping the $500 union fee and using privately-run childcare.

The report found that University of Sydney students paid $6-$7 a day more for childcare subsidised by the union than they would at a privately-run centre nearby.

Dr Nelson said that 60 per cent of childcare places subsidised by students were being taken up by staff.

However, Opposition education spokeswoman Jenny Macklin said Dr Nelson had little idea how campus services operated. For example, at the University of Western Sydney, the students' association provided a block grant of $25,000 to allow its childcare centre to keep a place open over the summer.

At a normal childcare centre, students would have to pay for the entire calendar year or lose their place and rejoin a waiting list.

At La Trobe University, in Melbourne, 60 per cent of childcare places were for students who paid about $65 a week after the maximum taxpayer-funded childcare benefit was paid, rather than the staff rate of $270 a week. "This is an outstanding example of how the student organisation fee really supports children, with parents being able to continue their studies," Ms Macklin said.

Fees fuel campus life

Janice Reid: Fees fuel campus life

The Australian

March 17, 2005

THE cacophony of voices of the advocates and critics of voluntary student unionism is drowning out the real issues. Student unionism has been conflated by some commentators with political activism, unbridled excesses and nefarious student goings-on.

The stereotypes of the feckless and partisan student official more interested in the next election than fellow students and conversely of the battler who does not use the services provided are predictably to the fore in this debate. All of this makes for colourful rhetoric, but is beside the point.

The fees that universities collect from enrolling students are traditionally passed on to student associations to employ staff and to provide facilities and services. These in turn give life to campus communities and are an integral part of a university education for students at all ages and stages.

Universities can be lonely places and the array of student services and activities provides networks and support. For some students, these are central to their lives and success at university.

Consider the following: the nursing student who drops her toddler at the campus childcare centre before class; the student living away from home who relies on the cafeteria for a good and cheap meal; the student in financial difficulties who receives a small loan to tide her over; the student who is failing and seeks the help of a welfare officer; the student who joins a sports club to meet friends and be part of the life of the campus; the student who looks for like-minded companions through the Union social club; the student who seeks a quiet moment in the multi-faith prayer room; the chronically ill student who relies on the campus health centre; the student who uses the employment service to find part-time work and the student who gets urgent legal advice that is otherwise out of his reach.






Each is using services funded by student fees.

While it is true that some may benefit more than others, it is well accepted in Australian society that various levies such as rates and taxes support a societal need and are not necessarily equally redistributed.

In outer urban and country regions and for universities with scattered campuses, a campus becomes an extension of home and family, a self-contained village with its own cultural life, social supports and basic services. Students studying at these campuses cannot simply pop down to Lygon Street, Broadway or the Rundle Street Mall to get something to eat, see the doctor, meet friends or go to the shops.

Such campuses are many in number across Australia and will be particularly hard hit if universities are forbidden from charging a modest fee to provide those facilities and services that are part of the fabric of Australian universities.

The notion that private providers will fill the gap is a chimera. The cost of their goods and services, the seasonality of the customer base and students' limited disposable income do not make most regional campuses viable environments for independent small businesses.

If we at the University of Western Sydney – with 36,000 students on six large campuses across 2000sqkm – cannot charge a service fee, the prospects for our students are bleak.

It is not that students will go elsewhere. Many will have nowhere else to go. Our experience has been that the market does not colonise the empty niche. We cannot use educational funds for these purposes and have no other sources to draw upon.

We understand the principles that underpin Federal Education Minister Brendan Nelson's desire for change, accountability and the operation of the market. Over the years there have been acknowledged instances of the improper use of monies and problems with the governance of some student associations in Australia.

Student associations mirror the broader society and are no more or less prone to malfeasance than a corporation, a golf club or a local council.

And, of course, among advocates and detractors of voluntary student unionism are those now in public life who honed their own skills and ambitions on the stage of university student union politics.

The issue is not doing away with them, but creating modes of governance that incorporate the checks and balances that protect student members from bad decisions or bad behaviour and ensure the resources go where they are most needed and do the most good.

For our university, this is not a matter of ideology or politics. It is about creating an environment that nurtures the whole student, creates a sense of mutual responsibility, reflects the university's values and supports the transforming role of higher education in our diverse communities.

Janice Reid is vice-chancellor of the University of Western Sydney.

Nelson defends voluntary student union fee legislation

Australian Broadcasting Corporation

TV PROGRAM TRANSCRIPT

LOCATION: http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2005/s1325099.htm

Broadcast: 16/03/2005
Nelson defends voluntary student union fee legislation

Reporter: Kerry O'Brien

KERRY O'BRIEN: Education Minister Brendan Nelson joins me now from Canberra.

KERRY O'BRIEN: Brendan Nelson, while the sausage rolls are still warm is it true, in your experience, that canteen service at universities is not as friendly as it is in off campus cafes, as you rather snidely seemed to imply?

BRENDAN NELSON , Education Minister: Well, Kerry first of all I enjoyed the package. The point of this whole argument is that we want, in the 21st century, for students to have the choice as to whether they join the student union or they do not. One of the purposes to which students involuntarily removed money is put is subsidising cafeteria and other services on campus. The point I'm trying to make is that often these services are not, could you say, customer focused. They're often - not always, but they're often more expensive than you can get off campus. And in this the 21st Century we believe if students do want services, if they value those services, they will be more than happy to pay for them, which you could take from some of the remarks in Michael's package.

KERRY O'BRIEN: After your new law is passed, do you care what happens to, say, the student child care services at Flinders University that we just saw?

BRENDAN NELSON: Well, Kerry I realise you have to ask that sort of question but it's a bit unfair. Of course we care about child care.

KERRY O'BRIEN: But the vice chancellors say these services might disappear.

BRENDAN NELSON: You expect the vice chancellors to say that but I say to them: if they can afford to pay their academics nine months' maternity leave and if child care needs subsidising on campus I would be most surprised if they weren't prepared to subsidise that in some way. The question is ,Kerry, as a Government, the average Australian taxpayer, including tax paying students on campus fund and support billions of dollars in support of child care every year in Australia. Why is it when suddenly you walk into a university, it needs to be subsidised by people who are going to university to get an education who don't have children and may not want to have them? Why should the everyday student be forced to buy a product that they may not want, when what they actually want is an education? Why is it that the everyday student who wants to go to university is required to subsidise these and other services, including what in some cases are the most extreme political activism, whether of the left or indeed of the right.

KERRY O'BRIEN: I suppose ordinary common everyday taxpayers would say why do they have to pay taxes that go to pay for services they don't always use?

BRENDAN NELSON: I saw Mr Mullarvey who is the chief executive of the Vice Chancellor's committee in that package. He made the point that we all pay council rates and of course we do as do students.

KERRY O'BRIEN: Well, students who own properties pay council rates, minister.

BRENDAN NELSON: Well...

KERRY O'BRIEN: How many students do you know who own properties?

BRENDAN NELSON: Well, in fact, Kerry, the socioeconomic mix of universities is changing and there are a number of students, mature-age students, including mothers...

KERRY O'BRIEN: We're talking about the majority of students. I mean, that's...

BRENDAN NELSON: The point is, Kerry.

KERRY O'BRIEN: Can we be real about this? You seem to be suggesting that - you're seriously suggesting that the majority of Australian university students can afford to own properties and therefore pay council rates.

BRENDAN NELSON: Kerry, don't be ridiculous. You're being unnecessarily provocative. The reality is that many students pay rent and they pay rent to landlords who build into the rental, of course the rates they pay to councils. The point that needs to be understood is that all of us pay council rates in one form or another and support council services but why is it that you should then have to pay again, simply because you're a university student, where you go on to university, you want an education and you are required to compulsorily join a student union guild or association? This is the 21st Century. It's time students in this country, many of whom come from struggling families, are given the choice as to whether they will part with $500 or $600 to support students political representation and services on campus or alternatively choose not do do it. The good news forth Labor Party and the student union activists insists is there will be no law preventing them from paying it.

KERRY O'BRIEN: Whatever might be spent on any kind of political activity is very much at the minor end of the total use those fees are put to and that the greater end is spent on what universities and students regard as essential services, even though not every student uses every service?

BRENDAN NELSON: Kerry, What we want, whether it's political representation...

KERRY O'BRIEN: Sorry, can you just answer the question?

BRENDAN NELSON: The reality, Kerry, is that we want students to be able to choose to spend their hard-earned money on services that they think are appropriate to them, and...

KERRY O'BRIEN: You've made that point minister, already. Could you answer the question, please?

BRENDAN NELSON: Kerry, as far as the university union fees are concerned, which is $155 million forcibly removed from students last year, much of that money goes to support a whole variety of services, and political representation on campus, and in terms of the breakdown, I suggest you put that question to the student unions themselves.

KERRY O'BRIEN: You quoted from an anonymous letter to the Prime Minister...

BRENDAN NELSON: Kerry, I might point out to you that the Melbourne University union, which had a revenue of $14 million a year, went into receivership and bankruptcy in a $44 million deal. You've got single adult parents who are going to university to train to be nurses who are subsidising that kind of nonsense losing tens of millions of dollars. Give the students the choice, Kerry, as to whether they will purchase cheaper sausage rolls, have child care, get counselling or be members of the socialist activist group or indeed the Liberal Party.

KERRY O'BRIEN: You quoted from an anonymous letter in the Prime Minister, anonymous in the sense that you didn't reveal who wrote it, the allegation that union fees were used to fund two political protests. Did you check the accuracy of those allegations?

BRENDAN NELSON: Yes, I did Kerry.

KERRY O'BRIEN: Can you give us the details?

BRENDAN NELSON: I won't provide the specific details of the person who wrote to the Prime Minister.

KERRY O'BRIEN: No, but what about the details of the allegations?

BRENDAN NELSON: Because he preferred not to be identified. But I can show you mountains of information that is reported from newspapers and media outlets across the country and indeed from students on campus who are members of student unions that demonstrates that student union funds have been used to support a whole variety of often unlawful activities, which would not be supported by the vast majority of students. And the point, Kerry, is that...

KERRY O'BRIEN: Sorry but you're not prepared here to offer one illustration that you can prove where money was used in that way?

BRENDAN NELSON: Well, Kerry, I can provide you with evidence of student unions running union funds into the ground, sending organisations bankrupt, and indeed spending their funds on things that would not be supported by the vast majority of students. You seem to be missing the point and that is that Mr Mullarvey in the package there said that universities in some way are different. The walls of universities in a figurative sense need to come down. What happens in a university should be no different from what happens in the broader community. We want students to have the choice, Kerry, as to whether they will or will not join a union and I would have thought for people that have been lecturing me for three years about the evils of compulsory up-front fees, you'd think they'd be enthusiastic in their support of this.

KERRY O'BRIEN: La Trobe University has regional campuses right through Victoria. Like Bendigo, Shepparton, Mildura. Do you know what will happen to services for regional students funded on those campuses by the compulsory student fee like child care services, like health services, like sporting facilities?

BRENDAN NELSON: Well, the experience in Western Australia, where voluntary student unionism like this was introduced in 1994, was that these services not only survived, in many cases they actually flourished. The reality Kerry is that if students value these services, they presumably will be prepared to continue to choose to spend their money on supporting them, and also, Kerry, there are small businesses in regional communities that would welcome the opportunity to actually be able to provide a competitive service to students on campus.

KERRY O'BRIEN: Do you have any idea how - do you know any students? Average income students who could afford to pay a commercial rate for child care? While going to university full time?

BRENDAN NELSON: Well, Kerry, as far as child care is concerned, there are battling parents, battling tax paying parents right across the country that are paying for child care every day. The Government has announced there will be a 30 per cent rebate further to the subsidies already available for those students - those taxpayers, and also, I go back to the experience in Western Australia. Child care services continued to be provided. What's happening here is the universities and those who run the universities are being shaken to their boot straps because they've got to think about what do they provide and why do they provide it and what do students think about it?

KERRY O'BRIEN: In November last year you publicly supported the idea of fees for a defined list of what you called essential services. Is it true you were squashed by Cabinet on that one? Because you walked away from it very quickly.

BRENDAN NELSON: Following the re-election of the Government and by the way this is the third attempt by the Government to legislate voluntary student unionism, I invited the universities to present proposals to me for a model of some sort of service levy, if you like, that could not, if you like, be got around. There is no way that, in fact the Government has made this decision, quite clearly - there is no way that we are going to allow universities to forcibly appropriate money from students for things unless those students actually choose to purchase them. It's the 21st Century. This should be unremarkable to the average person and I'll bet you in five years' time after this is implemented, there will be plenty of child care and other services on campus for Australian students.

KERRY O'BRIEN: Brendan Nelson, Thanks for talking with us.

BRENDAN NELSON: Thanks, Kerry.

Govt moves to abolish compulsory student union fees

Australian Broadcasting Corporation

TV PROGRAM TRANSCRIPT

LOCATION: http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2005/s1325097.htm

Broadcast: 16/03/2005
Govt moves to abolish compulsory student union fees

Reporter: Michael Brissenden

KERRY O'BRIEN: After years of threats to act, the Howard Government has finally moved to introduce a law abolishing compulsory union fees at Australian universities. The Education Minister, Brendan Nelson, argues that students should be free to join associations and clubs if they want, but should have the freedom of choice not to have their money spent on services they don't use or on political campaigns they may not agree with. The student unions and university vice-chancellors all say the money provides essential support services and that without it, campus life will be a much more difficult and far less rewarding experience. From Canberra, political editor Michael Brissenden reports.

MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: Universities have always been political hot houses. It's where many past and current politicians got their first taste of the rough and tumble of political life. In the 1970s, some of the more senior members of this government, including Peter Costello, Tony Abbott and Eric Abetz were among those at the forefront of the fierce, ideological battle against the radical, left-wing Australian Union of Students. It wouldn't be overstating it to suggest that many on the Government's front bench have been waiting a long time for legislation such as this.

DR BRENDAN NELSON, EDUCATION MINISTER: When Australian students in 2006 arrive at an Australian university as far as this Government is concerned, they will be given the choice as to whether they will join the student union, or not join the student union.

MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: The Government says this is an issue of principle. It's about freedom of choice. The student unions, the Opposition and the minor parties say it's a dogmatic political vendetta.

SENATOR BOB BROWN, GREENS LEADER: It's dogma. It's Coalition dogma. Mention the word 'union', they're opposed to it. It's just a thoughtless and reckless mental reaction to the word 'union'.

FELIX ELDRIDGE, NATIONAL UNION OF STUDENTS: Twenty or 30 years ago, a few of these government members were out fighting Communists on their campuses during the Cold War and they've still got this same idea that student organisations are about giving money to the PLO, whereas the reality is student organisations and student service fees are a part of every modern university.

MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: Campus life today may be a little less revolutionary than in the 1970s, but the Government says there is still a pervading ideological problem that needs to be addressed. Currently compulsory levies of about $500 a year are collected from every university student - a total, according to the Government, of $155 million a year. Why should all students subsidise bus trips to Woomera, or abseiling classes? But the student unions say politics these days takes just a fraction of their budgets.

ROSE JACKSON, SYDNEY UNIVERSITY SRC: We're not funding buses, not paying for students to go, not paying for accommodation or food. If students want to go, they have to pay their own money.

MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: Even the vice-chancellors, who have to protect their own doors from rabid students, say say the money goes much further than funding the Lego club.

JOHN MULLARVEY, AUSTRALIAN VICE-CHANCELLORS COMMITTEE: When you belong to a community, a local council charges you a fee called rates. Now, it's a compulsory rates. You don't always use all of the services, but it's something you're required to pay. We talk about universities as a community. And part of the obligation of being part of that community is to pay the essential services fee even though you may not use all of the services.

STUDENT: It provides a diverse range of services for students, sport facility, welfare advice, legal advice, food and beverages. Just a place to get together and interact with other people. I think it would be a great shame if that was taken away from the university.

MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: In fact, Brendan Nelson's all alma mater, Flinders University in Adelaide, is a typical case in point. Student fees here pay for a vast array of different services. One of the most important is child care.

HANNAH DIXON, FLINDERS UNIVERSITY STUDENT: Without it we would not be able to go to uni, or school. We'd just have to stay home with bubs. Without it - it's just great. It's a good atmosphere. I know he will be safe here and well looked after. We just can't afford child care. This has been a godsend.

MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: Sport is another area that some say will be hit particularly hard. Sporting clubs are a key part of the university experience.

DANIEL MARSDEN, AUSTRALIAN UNIVERSITY SPORT: If you take away that infrastructure, then all the university will be about is getting a degree. Some people might say that's great, but if you lose the whole emphasis on character building, team building, leadership - all those things that student get out of sport will virtually start to disappear.

MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: But it's not sport or child care or other student-support services that's become the central iconic theme of this debate. No, believe it or not, it's the humble sausage roll. Why is it, the minister asks, that a student pays $2 at the Student Union at Sydney Uni, but if he walks off campus and heads across the road he can get a much better deal?

DR BRENDAN NELSON: If he goes to the Crispy Inn bakery in Newtown, he will pay $1.70 for a sausage roll, and in fact, you will get a very warm reception from someone who's in a traineeship. Further to that, if you go to the Newtown bakery in King Street, you will pay $1.80 and get service with a smile.

MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: How is it that the sausage roll has become today's political football? It has to be said that a quick sausage roll comparison reveals that the Crispy Inn version is slightly smaller. However the baker tells us that if you present a student card, he will even sell it to you for $1.35 - a bargain. Why is it that here in the free-wheeling, free-market atmosphere of Parliament House, a sausage roll costs $2.40? Outrageous!

Uproar over student union fee moves

Uproar over student union fee moves
By Orietta Guerrera, David Rood
March 17, 2005

The Age

New Federal Government laws to abolish compulsory student union fees will force students to pay the full cost of services such as counselling and welfare, vice-chancellors have warned.

Under proposed legislation introduced in Parliament yesterday, university students will no longer have to pay mandatory fees for student services from next year.

Universities will face multimillion-dollar fines if they charge students a compulsory student union fee.

The Government's push has been rejected by all corners of the higher education sector, with students, vice-chancellors and tertiary unions saying yesterday it would lead to the demise of many student services, from orientation week to clubs and societies.

Monash University vice-chancellor Richard Larkins said the change meant there would be up to $13 million less funding available for student services and facilities on Monash campuses.

"(The fees) are the same to my mind as taxes imposed by governments that provided a variety of services, not all of which are accessed by everyone who pays taxes," he said.

Monash would try to fund essential services, Professor Larkins said, but was constrained by inadequate government indexation of university funding, fines for alternative levies on students and the recent downturn in international student market.

Melbourne University vice-chancellor Glyn Davis said he held great concerns for the impact on university life, saying students came to university not just for the courses but for the experience.

"They want to be part of a campus where interesting things happen, where they have access to a life that is broader than just studying," he said.

The Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee attacked the plan, describing it as "heavy-handed". Committee president Di Yerbury said students already had the option not to be members of student organisations.

Voluntary student unionism has been a long-held aim of the Howard Government, and with the Coalition gaining control of the Senate in July it is almost certain to become law.

Education Minister Brendan Nelson yesterday ruled out increasing funding to universities to help pay for any shortfall in funding for students services, saying if they were "high-quality" services students would choose to continue to pay for them.

He said if institutions did not refund students within 28 days of being contacted by his office, they would be fined $100 for every full-time student enrolled in the university.

Victorian university students paid more than $51 million in student union fees this year, which subsidise student services. Fees ranged from $500 at RMIT to $258 at Ballarat University.

Opposition education spokeswoman Jenny Macklin described the proposal as a "blatant ideological attack" on student groups.

Learned friends take minister to task

Learned friends take minister to task
By Nassim Khadem
March 17, 2005

The Age

Angry students at Victoria University's Footscray campus yesterday briefly stopped traffic in Ballarat Road as they protested against Federal Government plans to introduce voluntary student unionism and a university proposal to increase HECS fees by 10 per cent.

About 40 students took part in the rally, chanting slogans such as "free education for all, not just the rich" and "hey Nelson, you're selling our unis, f--- off".

Student union representatives across the state are outraged about the Federal Government's plans to ban compulsory student unionism, saying it will be the end of vital services such as health, child care and counselling.

"It will make Australia's universities into a bit of a joke internationally," National Union of Students president Felix Eldridge said. Mr Eldridge said his meeting with Education Minister Brendan Nelson yesterday had not made a difference. "It's pretty poor that the consultation happened after the policy was introduced to Parliament," he said. "He (Dr Nelson) is not willing to compromise at all."

Rebecca Barrigos, education officer with the National Union of Students, who led yesterday's protest, said the effect would be devastating. "It means that services that are controlled by students for students will be taken over by private enterprises who come in and make a profit and students have no say about how their services are run," she said. "I would not be surprised if Donut King opened up on our property. Why wouldn't private operators take up the opportunity? We've already seen it happen at other campuses."
AdvertisementAdvertisement

Melbourne University's education officer (public affairs) Elizabeth O'Shea said commercial enterprises had already opened stores on campus. "With voluntary student unionism it's just going to get worse," she said. Ms O'Shea said it would also mean that students had no independent representative during academic appeals. "Without student unions you lose the advocacy role," she said. "Having a staff member from the university represent them is hardly independent."

RMIT student union officer Stuart Martin said outer suburbs and regional campuses, with limited access to services and facilities outside the university, would suffer the most.

Campus services face big fall over union curbs

Campus services face big fall over union curbs
Drew Warne-Smith, Ian Gerard and Cath Hart
March 17, 2005

The Australian

VITAL university services such as health and childcare, legal, housing and career advice would face the axe under the Howard Government's plan to abolish compulsory student union fees, students have warned.

And university sporting clubs, many of which are the training grounds for elite athletes, say they rely on the union fees to exist.

Queensland University of Technology Student Guild president Kate Perry said gyms, childcare, campus bars and the aquatic centre would be cut under voluntary unionism and a user-pays system.

University of Queensland Union treasurer Alex Main said services that are now run to break even could increase prices to bankroll advocacy work under the new regime.

The University of Sydney student union, which turns over $24million a year and draws about $8million from compulsory fees, predicts only 15 per cent of students will pay the fees voluntarily, basing the forecast on the experience in Western Australia, where fees are already voluntary.






With more than $21million spent on capital works by the student union on buildings in the past decade, critical university infrastructure will be jeopardised, union president Sam Crosby warned.

"It's not so easy to quantify which students use what services. We're talking about space, about students using buildings and toilets that have to be maintained," he said.

"This is going to have a devastating impact."

The Australian Olympic Committee voiced concerns that university sports programs could lose $100million under the Government's policy.

And International Olympic Committee member Kevan Gosper said he feared university clubs could die out and that students training for sports-related business degrees would be badly affected.

"I'm very concerned as patron of university sport in Australia that this move could have the unfortunate outcome of denting very badly the expectations of university sport at a very critical time," Mr Gosper said.

It remains unclear whether private or government-funded agencies would be able to fill the void when the unions can no longer subsidise the student welfare services - many of which are also offered to university staff - that generate little revenue.

But while most student bodies believe voluntary student unionism is a "scorched earth" policy, at least one union has welcomed the onslaught of market forces.

Jessica Weber, Student Association president at Townsville's James Cook University, said the ban on compulsory unions would force student unions to focus on core services such as academic advocacy and welfare, and allow additional services to operate on a user-pays basis.

"Inevitably, student unions around the country have to face the reality of becoming competitive in a real marketplace," said Ms Weber, a law and economics student affiliated with the Liberal Party.

"For too long, student unions have had the luxury of a captive market and have become complacent in fulfilling the needs of the majority of students.

"I actually support a user-pays system. I don't agree with the single mother-of-two having to pay for someone else to join the yachting club. If you want to join a sports team, you opt for sponsorship or you pay for yourself."

Peter Noble, legal projects officer with the Fitzroy Legal Service in Melbourne, said under-resourced welfare agencies would struggle to cope with the sudden influx of low-income students.

"It's a needy demographic," Mr Noble said. "But on current government funding levels, for many agencies like us it's just not feasible to extend dedicated services on to university campuses."

Minister's sausage gibe rolled

Minister's sausage gibe rolled
Drew Warne-Smith
March 17, 2005

The Australian

EDUCATION Minister Brendan Nelson reckons he only had to go as far as the cafeteria at Sydney University to find all that was wrong with services subsidised by the student union.

It was there, in the pie oven, Dr Nelson discovered the humble sausage roll was being served up by a scowling worker for $2 a pop.

Meanwhile, a couple of hundred metres down the road, the free market was delivering them for at least 30 cents cheaper, Dr Nelson said.

"Plus you get served by a person who's actually smiling at you," he trumpeted in the federal parliament and again on ABC radio yesterday.

With student unions across the nation howling about essential welfare services being slashed in the wake of the move to end compulsory union fees, it was a curious claim to make.






But The Australian yesterday put it to the test at campuses across the country.

And it seems the minister's claims were, like some of the offerings, a little flaky.

While several bakeries on King Street, Newtown, not far from Sydney University, served up cheaper sausage rolls, they were paltry fare compared with the Balfour's Big Fella that had whetted Dr Nelson's appetite on campus.

At a whopping 180 grams of A-grade sausage roll, the $2 Big Fella is pastry's Rolls Royce, and it comes with complementary tomato sauce.

An equivalent-sized sausage roll at Gloria Jeans in Newtown cost $3.75. At nearby Shakespeares, $2.90.

"He hasn't compared apples with apples. Well, er, sausage rolls with sausage rolls. You know what I mean," Student Union president Sam Crosby said as he wolfed down the last one from the oven. "Plus if you have no compulsory fee, we'll have to charge you for the sauce. And that's just un-Australian."

It was a similar story at the Queensland University of Technology. The Student Guild's canteen charged $2 for a pre-packaged sausage roll. At the Characters Cafe on George Street, the price was $2.50.

But in Melbourne and Adelaide, Dr Nelson's thesis seemed to fare better.

At Melbourne University, a sausage roll was a whole 70 cents dearer than some sold on Lygon Street, and our correspondent reported the staff were a little less than friendly.

Nelson urges unis to back fee ban

Nelson urges unis to back fee ban
Samantha Maiden
March 17, 2005

The Australian

UNIVERSITIES should embrace the freedom of voluntary student unionism to pursue commercial opportunities and allow "7-Eleven supermarkets and Baker's Delight" to flourish on campus, Brendan Nelson said yesterday.

As student unions, academics and university chiefs condemned the plan to ban a universal student services fee as a threat to campus facilities and the multi-million-dollar international student market, the Education Minister said it was time students were free to choose to join a union.

His push to introduce a user-pays system on campus coincided with a new OECD report revealing Australia was one of a handful of nations to reduce government funding for tertiary education per student between 1995 and 2001. Australian government spending on tertiary students fell 8.7 per cent, or $1528 per student.

The Australian revealed yesterday that the Howard Government's new legislation would include tough fines of up to $3 million for universities that attempted to circumvent the ban.

Students are now forced to pay up to $590-a-year to join a student union when they enrol to study.






Introducing the legislation in parliament yesterday, Dr Nelson confirmed universities would face fines of $100 for every student enrolled if they breached the ban.

"The days of universities just lazily ripping $500-$600 out of the pockets of hardworking students from their part-time jobs and ramming that money into a range of services

and political representation that students don't always want are well and truly over," he said.

"It's time that, on university campuses, that we realise that what students are looking for is a 7-Eleven or a Baker's Delight."

As student groups vowed to fight the changes, university chiefs condemned the plan as a threat to the market for international students.

"A compulsory student fee should be seen in the same way that rates and taxes contribute to the community life of every Australian," said Professor Ian Chubb, chairman of the Group of Eight, research-intensive, universities.

The National Liaison Committee for International Students in Australia warned a reduction in campus services would deliver a blow to university revenues generated by overseas students. "Student organisations provide essential services to international students such as advocacy, counselling, women's rooms and prayer rooms for Muslim students and international clubs and societies," NLC national convenor Aditya Tater said.

In parliament, Opposition education spokeswoman Jenny Macklin seized on Treasurer Peter Costello's comments in 1978 to the student newspaper Lot's Wife, in which he warned against a radical model of voluntary student unionism that banned any universal service levy.

"Why won't the Education Minister heed the Treasurer's lessons on how essential campus services – like childcare, sport and health – are delivered?" Ms Macklin said.

The National Union of Students and the majority of campus student organisations condemned the move.

NUS president Felix Eldridge said the plan would damage Australia's reputation overseas.

Professor sides with students

Professor sides with students
Paige Taylor
March 17, 2005

The Australian

LESS than 12 months ago, law student Mathew Chuk angrily blocked his vice-chancellor, Alan Robson, from attending a meeting at the University of Western Australia during a protracted row over HECS fees.

But yesterday the vice-chancellor and the student activist found common ground.

Both are strongly opposed to legislation that would end compulsory student unionism and the levying of students for services provided by guilds.

Mr Chuk said the legislation was an ideological attack by the Howard Government.

UWA levies students $120 each, giving $84 to the guild and $36 to the university's sports association. Professor Robson said it was important for universities to have strong student organisations that did not necessarily toe the line.






"That is part of being a student advocacy group," he said. "I would still want to have a strong student body and I would want them to have an independent position. I think they have added enormously to the life of the university."

The Court government banned compulsory student unionism in Western Australia in 1994, leaving the state's four major student guilds to be ruined when federal assistance ended in 1996.

Revenue plummeted, services such as a sexual assault referral centre at UWA were axed, staff were made redundant and one guild went into liquidation.

But in 2002, the Gallop Government introduced legislation that has breathed new life into the guilds -- they exist on compulsory levies though membership is still optional.

"I think this system has enabled the development of a vibrant student life on our campus and has provided excellent counselling and advocacy services for our students," Professor Robson said.

Like other vice-chancellors around the nation, Professor Robson believes student services will suffer under the plan to make universities provide them in future.

"We will have to divert some precious resources into maintaining the quality of student life," he said.

Unis to face big fines on union 'fees'

Unis to face big fines on union 'fees'
Samantha Maiden
March 16, 2005

The Australian

UNIVERSITIES could face multi-million-dollar fines if they attempt to circumvent a government ban on charging compulsory student union fees, under tough legislation to be unveiled by Education Minister Brendan Nelson.

The Howard Government's plan to end compulsory student unionism in Australia will also force universities to cover any shortfall in the cost of student services, presently funded by the $160 million-a-year collected in union fees.

The legislation contains heavy financial penalties for universities that try to bypass the ban by charging their own levy to subsidise campus services such as cafeterias, bars and sporting clubs.

Vice-chancellors last night condemned the Nelson plan as the "death of services" on campus, which could damage Australia's reputation overseas. However, Dr Nelson told parliament that struggling students should not be forced to pay union fees, quipping that the introduction of market forces into campus catering could reduce the price of a sausage roll.

Despite secret discussions among vice-chancellors last year to consider a peace plan that banned student unions from using fees to fund political campaigns but retained a compulsory fee for campus services, the new legislation has rejected any compromise.






At present, students are charged upfront fees of up to $590 when they enrol at university, with the proceeds used to fund services including cafeterias, sporting clubs, student welfare services and political campaigns.

Students cannot enrol to study unless they pay the compulsory union fee, despite complaints among part-time and external students that they rarely use campus services.

The Australian understands the new laws will allow universities just 28 days to offer refunds to students if they charge compulsory fees.

Universities that fail to refund compulsory charges will face fines of $100 for every full-time student.

For example, Monash University, which has 30,000 full-time undergraduates, could face fines of up to $3 million.

Sydney University would face fines of up to $2.6 million, Melbourne University $2.5 million, Adelaide University $1 million and the Curtin University of Technology in Western Australia $2 million.

Dr Nelson refused to comment on the penalties plan last night but confirmed student fees were costing students $160 million a year.

Earlier, Dr Nelson told parliament the Howard Government would push ahead with plans to introduce voluntary student unionism as soon as possible.

"Every Australian, whether they be in a workplace or a university campus, should be free to not join a union," he said. "Why should a single parent, a mother of two who goes back to university to study nursing, subsidise the abseiling club? Why should she subsidise buses to Woomera or the purchase of axes to break down the vice-chancellors' offices?

"Why is it that a student in the 21st century goes to Sydney University to pay $2 for a sausage roll when they can buy one for $1.70 off campus and be served by a person who actually smiles at them?

"This Government will not be deterred from its course of action. This will be implemented in 2005."

La Trobe University vice-chancellor Michael Osborne last night urged parliament to reject the legislation.

"It's the death of university facilities," he told The Australian. "We depend substantially on overseas students and if we have campuses that don't have services other than user-pays we will make it more difficult for us to to recruit overseas.

"It's madness."

University of Western Sydney vice-chancellor Janice Reid said she strongly backed the right of students to retain representation.

"The system we have had for many years has worked well for UWS," she said.

The National Union of Students yesterday lobbied Coalition MPs in Canberra over the effect of voluntary student unionism on student services.

NUS president Felix Eldridge said students were willing to have compulsory fees regulated and reviewed, but urged MPs to reject the legislation.

"Student organisations are not about sausage rolls," he said.

"This legislation is going to destroy student services on campus and make Australia's universities less competitive internationally.

"These fees help pay for childcare services on campus, academic support and other essential welfare services."

Opposition education spokeswoman Jenny Macklin warned that abolishing universal membership of student organisations would result in hundreds of job losses and the death of campus life.

"Jobs in services like sporting, childcare, legal and health facilities are all hanging in the balance," she said. "This is a blatantly ideological attack on our universities and the chance to get even with students for daring to criticise massive fee hikes."

Challenges for student unions

Editorial: Challenges for student unions

The Australian

March 17, 2005

IN many ways the stoush over compulsory student unionism is much ado about nothing.

Compared with the substantial issues on the higher education agenda – such as allowing universities to specialise in either teaching or research, or removing the dead hand of industrialism from their workplace culture – the question of whether students should be forced to fund newspapers or cafeterias is a sideshow at best. And let's face it, making student unionism in every state voluntary, as it has been in Western Australia since 1994, will not radically alter the character of campus life. Popular student pursuits, such as sporting clubs, will survive – indeed, not having to pay an across-the-board subscription of $300-$500 will leave students with more disposable income to support the things they truly value. And contrary to the fears expressed yesterday for the survival of basic sports facilities by Kevan Gosper, universities will continue to subsidise these from their recurrent funds just as they do now.

But while voluntary student unionism may not be the biggest issue confronting universities, there is a very clear point of principle involved – the principle of choice. Like other unions, student unions campaigned for the defeat of the Howard Government on October 9, 2004. Unlike other unions, however, student unions have the power – backed by the universities themselves – to force members to join, whatever their political beliefs. It is perfectly fitting that campuses should be the forum for vigorous political debate from all quarters, including the far-left quarter that many students get conscripted into but most eventually grow out of. But no student should have to fund a political campaign with which he or she does not agree.

And the principle of choice goes beyond campus politics. An increasing number of students study part-time or via the internet: why should they pay for facilities they never get to use? A working student might far sooner subscribe to a gym convenient to their workplace than at a university where they spend two hours a week. And as for things such as cafeteria services, these can be more efficiently delivered by established franchises and professional caterers than by management committees run by student heavies. The notion of the university as a community is attractive, but in the modern world a university is more a place where diverse communities interact for mutual benefit. Instead of mounting protests and sit-ins over voluntary student unionism, student activists and the organisers of student clubs should welcome it. Clubs, societies and student rags can only become stronger by virtue of having to compete for the student audience, instead of holding it captive