The Federal Government is going to restore the ability of universities to levy a compulsory student services charge of up to $250 per student per annum.
However, according to Federal Youth Minister Kate Ellis, student organisations or unions will not be managing the funds and the services to be funded:
Ms Ellis said university administrations were better placed to manage services like health, childcare, counselling and club funding.
Kate Ellis also says:
what we’re being very clear, from today is that we’re also going to be clear on what the money cannot be spent on, and it cannot be spent on broader political campaigns.
On both these issues – control of services by university managements rather than elected student bodies, and proscription of political campaigns – the government is both wrong and misguided.
On the first point, I am in a position to compare the performance of elected student bodies and unelected university bureaucracies in managing campus services. Since 1991 I have worked in various capacities at Griffith University, and since 2007 have also been employed by the University of Queensland. From 1992 to 2003 I also studied at Griffith. In these capacities I have had the opportunity to access various services and facilities which, at the University of Queensland and the Gold Coast campus of Griffith, are controlled by elected student bodies, but which are controlled by the University management body, Campus Life, at Griffith’s Brisbane campuses. To take just one example: the food served in the UQ and Gold Coast campus refectories is better, cheaper, comes in larger portions and provides a wider range of choices than that provided at Griffith’s Brisbane campuses. The latter is what one could expect from a monopoly provider which is subject neither to market forces nor to democratic processes of accountability.
To take another example. In the recent past the in the inter-campus sports teams at the Gold Coast had their travel and accommodation to an inter-university carnival handled by the Gold Coast Student Guild one year and by Campus Life the next. They have testified via their campus magazine that the former experience was considerably more pleasant and safer than the latter, and that the difference rested in the fact that in one case the relevant decisions were being made by students and by managers accountable to students, whilst in the other it was not.
On the second point, Kate Ellis repeats a favourite trope of right-wing folklore that the major source of waste and misuse of funds in student organisations occurs, and has occurred, in relation to political campaigns and spending. In refuting this claim I name as star witness a former Liberal student activist and current libertarian philosopher Charles Richardson, writing in the CIS publication Policy:
…quarantining political expenditure, even if it was possible, was still unsatisfactory, because waste was greater elsewhere. Political activities, even broadly interpreted, accounted for only a small fraction of student union expenditure, and they had at least the semblance of a rationale for collective provision: student representation, it could be argued, was a public good that could not be funded on a user-pays basis. The service activities—catering, sporting clubs, even dental services—were (and are) much more extravagant and much harder to justify in that fashion… The second argument [against the Howard Government's voluntary student unionism legislation] came from more moderate critics; they queried why the legislation should go beyond political activities. According to these critics, who showed a sort of benevolent paternalism towards student organisations, the service activities of unions were unobjectionable and should be protected. This argument ignored, due to either ignorance or deceit, the history of unsuccessful attempts to quarantine political expenditure. It also ignored the fact that waste, as always, was more conspicuous on the services side of student unions.
My own considerable experience in student organisations (including being the Treasurer of both an undergraduate and a postgraduate student organisation) leads me to largely concur with Charles Richardson on this score. Most of the funds handled by student unions are spent employing staff and office-bearers, providing services and running commercial operations, and increasingly in recent years have been invested in business ventures of varying degrees of soundness. Not surprisingly, it is in these areas that the most egregious instances of waste, misuse of resources, mismanagement and outright corruption have occurred (e.g. some tens of thousands of dollars worth of beverages going unaccountably missing from the Griffith University SRC in the early 1990s). Further, some of the worst of these episodes have occurred on the watch of self-described “moderate”, “non-political” student union leaderships such as those of Kate Ellis’s Labor Right factional colleagues who destroyed the Melbourne University Student Union.
So what is my alternative? Basically, it is to restore the role of democratic student management of services and funds, but strictly subject to certain institutional safeguards and accountability mechanisms which have been largely missing from the governance structures of student organisations hitherto. These would include:
* choosing governing bodies for student organisations by methods which would preclude “winner-take-all” outcomes (with all the consequent evils of groupthink, clique rule and factional patronage) and include a critical mass of students whose interest in student unions is not of a factional-political or party-political character;
* establishing mechanisms and structures for the resolution of disputes and the enforcement of constitutional compliance which would be as impartial as possible in their composition, independent of the internal political processes of student organisations, and easily accessible by any student and any employee of the student organisation, and with enforcement powers approaching those of a court;
* providing for a critical mass of professional management within student unions who would work for the student union but would legally be employees of the university, and who would handle day-to-day staffing and financial management, subject to the policy direction of the elected governing body but with the legal right to refuse to comply with directives which were unconstitutional or illegal, and to appeal to the aforesaid dispute-settling machinery.
Those are some ideas. The basic principle would be to restore the principle of “student control of student affairs” in a hardnosed way which provides safeguards against the consequences of inexperience and lack of skills in financial and wokplace relations management (problems which are endemic to young student politicians across the spectrum) and against the pursuit of partisan factional agendas unrelated to the purpose of the student organisation (again, this problem can be found accross the spectrum) without arbitrarily stifling the capacity to engage in campaigning and representation. And remember that many more dollars of student service fees have been misspent in half-baked capitalist ventures than in half-baked communist adventures.
Great post. This really is a situation that combines the worst elements of two possibilities. The compulsory fee, but with no input into how it’s spent. Guaranteed to be hated by both the Right and the non-Labor left (albeit for different reasons), which I assume will be interpreted by Labor types as “if we’re pissing both groups off, we must be doing the right thing.” Jeez.
Yep neat post, Paul.
It certainly is true that some of the more spectacular (and isolated) instances of money being wasted in student unions come from efforts at “entrepreneurialism” rather than all those evil political campaigns (which after all are part of the “core business” of student unionism).
Interesting take on the announcement Paul. I wonder how rocky the road to senate passage of this new policy will be? Surely it will be difficult to get both the Greens and Fielding on the same page for this!
Obviously, I am totally opposed to the policy announcement as a committed VSU person preferring a user-pays model. I agree with you though regarding the Griffith and Melbourne Uni experiences. Without wanting to sound partisan, those on the Right of the ALP have done more to damage the cause of student Unionism than most of the muppets in ALSF could ever dream of doing!
I want to look at your suggestions seriously:
“choosing governing bodies for student organisations by methods which would preclude “winner-take-all” outcomes and include a critical mass of students whose interest in student unions is not of a factional-political or party-political character”
- I’m not sure that a democratic system could be formulated that avoided factional politics. Groupings are formed around similar political ideas and plans for the student organisation. WOuld it be a good idea to discourage these? Besides, most student organisations have a governing council which is elected proportionally which ensures that groupings with critical masses are represented.
“establishing mechanisms and structures for the resolution of disputes and the enforcement of constitutional compliance which would be as impartial as possible in their composition, independent of the internal political processes of student organisations, and easily accessible by any student and any employee of the student organisation, and with enforcement powers approaching those of a court.”
- I largely agree with this so long as this body is at arms length from the University. As an example, the UQ Union has an independently appointed electoral tribunal made up of barristers and Law School staff. Although, why would this body need to encompass Union staff as well? Surely the IRC, Workplace Ombudsman etc would be a more appropriate forum for them or their trade union to express their concerns?
“providing for a critical mass of professional management within student unions who would work for the student union but would legally be employees of the university, and who would handle day-to-day staffing and financial management, subject to the policy direction of the elected governing body but with the legal right to refuse to comply with directives which were unconstitutional or illegal, and to appeal to the aforesaid dispute-settling machinery.”
- Ok, I think this particular suggestion is borne of your Griffith experiences! I would be opposed to this suggestion in at my home campus (UQ), simply because I am very sceptical of the ability of the senior University bureaucrats to hire competent professionals to fulfil this function!
Kate Ellis said on radio this morning that elected student reps must sit on university “boards”, if a uni is to levy the new fees.
As I understand it, one problem with student unions was that the procession of young office-bearers and council members weren’t really capable of keeping the senior staff of the union accountable.
My second observation was that student union catering operations were notorious for generating inedible food at not-particularly-cheap prices, despite soaking up large subsidies. The proposed arrangements seem likely to regenerate such operations.
At what Uni in Australia DON’T students already sit on university “boards”????
The bigger question is the power balance. Being on a uni committee with 40 members (most of which are appointed by the hierachy) where you are the only student rep is hardly true representation!
Antonio and Robert both make interesting points which I will reply to in the depth they deserve when I’m back on line. Blogging has distracted me sorely from the pile of assignments I have to mark!
Agreed Robert.
My preferred solution to these problems would be to simply privatise the majority of the catering operations (preferrably not to the ONE supplier) which gives the student organisation a passive rental income. Some student organisation services are iconic though and should be retained in the interests of culture and university character.
No.The employed guild staff are usually excellent. The elected bunch are always wankers. You need to be a wanker to be elected. They are never helpful, and are always primarily concerned with the petty politics of being wankers and doing other wankers down. The Uni admins will ALWAYS do things like counselling and childcare better, so what possible reason would you give it to the guilds?
Robert, my most recent experience of student-managed catering was Adelaide Uni, 1992 – 6, and it was OK. The food was edible and reasonably priced, and they even had a palatable vego selection.
Anyone who’s had experience of university bureaucracy – either as a student or a staff member – might question its efficiency and superb managerial powers!
Misses the whole point of what student participation is about.
Ambig’s comment said a lot of how I feel about it.
Yet more of this appalling timidity from an ALP government elected with a clear mandate, this time involving the ALP’s answer to Sarah Palin (apart from Gillard), Kate Ellis.
paul walter – my comment expressed no feelings – are you attributing someone else’s comments to me? should i get on the blower to professor van onselen, to arrange a gig in his next book? i can’t do Liberal Deep Thinker, but i reckon i can get by with misattribution. happy to share any royalties with the real author.
Robert @ 5, David @ 10,
I don’t really see the point of forcing all students to subsidise food/drink at universities. How many of the really poor students buy their food rather than making it at home for much lower cost? (None that I saw when I was going through uni in the 90s)
“Liberal deep thinker”
Brandis or Bishop?
Christopher Pyne was whining about them bringing back teh union this morning, but you couldn’t POSSIBLY mean him??
Ahh… I get it… Brendon Nelson!
As to other probably Rodney, can’t remember .
Ps, probably best not to look to royalties from this quarter if look to survival in the real world- understand Peter and the MUPpets still have a huge backlog from a couple of months ago, despite all the discounting.
Chris: I agree entirely.
I also think the level of funding given to sports clubs out of amenities fees was rather OTT.
Chris, I don’t know about anywhere else, but the catering at Adelaide looked like it ran at a profit (or at least didn’t lose money), and it provided some part-time employment for students as well.
Interesting proposals, Paul, though i would point out they seem to have little in common with the union arrangements as they have ever stood in unis (to my admittedly very limited knowledge).
My real bone, is your ‘accountability’ call however. During my time at university I would say the student union was one of the most unaccountable bodies on campus. Only people who lived in college participated in the elections; so the majority of students didn’t have a say there. One union pres was actually charged with embezzlement (can’t remember if successful or all the song and dance about it). But I would say the idea that the unions are accountable to an apathetic and cynical student body is a very limited one.
Now, a university led consortium wouldn’t necessarily be more accountable, but that’s not to say the other student-led stuff is some panacea. What I would like to see is non-political student reps getting involved. Now that would be interesting.
Hmmm. Isn’t that just a teeny bit Capraesque for real life?
It’s possible to combine the advantages of student responsiveness and accountability, as Paul suggested. At UQU, in the early 80s, the financial side of things was restructured so that most decisions were made in effect by the Services & Finance Committee which included professional staff and a university Senate representative. Budgets and audited accounts also had to be approved by the university. The joint was well run, and the integrated services/representation model was something of great interest to SRCs operating in a split structure.
Specific committee structures to oversee particular services – for instance welfare and childcare and clubs & socs – can also be structured to draw on student input outside the party hack cohort.
It’s all doable with a bit of will, and a representative model is in principle far better than university provided services.
Mark, that model has stood the test of time! It’s STILL the way the UQU operates some 20+ years later (except that S&F committee is now called administrative committee).
With regard to restructuring for input, this year the Lib-controlled UQU changed all committees (except Admin, Clubs & Socs) to a collective style model where any student could participate and vote.
Liberal …. collective … ?????
I’m just about to finish my undergraduate degree and I’ve had experience of both VSU and compulsory fees. I was at Monash uni and for the first two years of my undergrad I was charged ~$400 a year. After VSU the main differences for me personally was that I got far less free food and the gym prices went up (ironically I stopped going to the gym even though it was technically more affordable for me).
I found the extra cash incredibly helpful, however, I did notice how difficult it was for the student organisations to keep going, particularly the office bearers who were suddenly paid a pittance.
Regarding this new proposal, I think it all comes down to what the money can be spent on. If the money can only be spent on upgrading computers or maintaining lecture theaters then there’s no point giving the money to the student union to spend unless the union performs those functions. If however, it can go to subsidising health or child care for students then it makes logical sense for students to be able at least able to vote for where their funds should go if not dispense it themselves.
As a random thought, if the money does go to the union may I suggest that students be able to vote for how much they pay? :p
paul walter: I meant I could pretend to be a Liberal Deep Thinker, just like those pollies pretended to be authors. I didn’t mean to suggest that any Liberal Deep Thinkers exist. I’d want to see some evidence.
Tone at least writes his own essays. And it’s interesting to see that the NCC has adopted the Trots’ “entrism” technique and got Tone right into the heart of the Liberal Party.
Actually, the old BA Santamaria WAS a deep thinker, in an old-fashioned European style. Never fitted in here in Australia really, but boy: what an amazing conspirator.
Deep Liberal Thinkers? That’d be Alexander Downer.
Socrates with a lisp.
The libs have had a fetish about how Students deal with Union dosh since what currently passes for their leadership was at Uni in the ’70’s.
I well recall people like Costello and the Krogers at Monash trying to stop the U making pitifully-small donations to people like Fretlin, so that they could afford to keep Jose Ramos Horta in cheeseburgers while he traipsed around the world trying to drum-up some support for his people, all the while living out of a suitcase.
Outrageous, they said.
Well, I guess it worked-out OK in the end.
Horta got the Nobel prize and became President of his country while Cossie is a has-been who can’t even flog his turgid tome.
I was just thinking about the “turgid tome” today while poking around the local book shop. We need an open thread for photos of the most reduced price for teh memoirs. Google really needs a record of the decline in the smirky one’s fortunes.
I atended Uni under both CSU in the mid 80’s and VSU in the late 90’s. Under VSU the available services were much more customer orientated than under CSU.
They are saying students under the proposed scheme will be able to pay off in a HECS style deferred payment. If that is going to be the case why don’t they just increase all fees by a prorata amount which the Unis can then distribute – seems the same outcome for a lot less buggering around.
If they insist in bringing back CSU, then they should at least also impose compulsory voting in student elections (no vote – no exam results).
Hopefully the agrarian socialists (Barnaby!!) won’t kick the traces and the Independents won’t allow this retrograde step – which is a broken promise – the ALP said they would not reimpose CSU – liars.
Paul – …some tens of thousands of dollars worth of beverages going unaccountably missing from the Griffith University SRC in the early 1990s
.
It wasn’t missing. It was in that cabinet you commie! And it was hundreds of thousands of dollars wasn’t it? I do regret hassling that pizza-faced pile of spare tires (what’s his name). He wasn’t ripping off his constituency in collusion with that Mt Gravatt
yobbo watering holepub he worked at. He was just providing students with what they wanted – ten bottles of Macallan single malt..
And you must admit that the ensuing witch hunt was shameful, shameful considering that the fine administrators of the GUSRC went on to be such avatars of good government and sound democratic practice.
Paul – Most of the funds handled by student unions are spent employing staff and office-bearers
.
True but consider one position on the GUSRC executive which was created as a political job – the Committees Liaison Officer. This position was obstensibly about creating some collective focus to the myriad student reps on various Uni committees with the view to enhancing the student voice. Fine in theory. Consider however that you’d need some years of experience in the Uni bureaucracy to do it effectively and it seems a tad like horseshit. Not impuning those who’ve attempted it including present company and my brother.
.
Still the fact was that it was a job created for a particular student hack that was turned into an elected position (to thwart him) and then proceeded from thence to be a mostly useless expenditure. Sometimes SRC employment is political.
.
Student unions have been seen as prime training territory for outside political groups particularly the ALP but also various activist groups from the Left some of whom I recall were less than honest in their dealings. Liberals tend to simply want to destroy these organizations. Or did before VSU.
.
Likewise consider the sheer and immense waste of mundane NUS shennanegans wherein delegates and office bearers whose prime loyalty was to the factions leading to post-graduation employment displayed such callous disregard for their constituency that they specifically excluded them from even witnessing the proceedings at conference and even had the temerity to limit debate on the issue to the bare minimum before pushing it thru.
.
This move seems to be in continuation of the ALP’s tradition of deploying the worst of both worlds for the sole purposes of pork provision. On the one hand students are required to pay a compulsory fee for services they may choose to seek elsewhere. On the other hand their capacity to manage their own money is severely limited and their ability to represent themselves is only allowed on the basis that they are ‘not political’. Not political can mean whatever you want it to.
.
What I see happening is the progressive exclusion of any ‘non-mainstream’ candidature in SRCs leading to them being the sole province of the ALP’s Right (so they strategize) who will indulge themselves in ‘non-political’ ways (including as at Melb U bankrupting the place) whilst doing their best to not rock the boat that leads to the plum job in Canberra because of some spurious requirement that they, um, represent students.
.
You pay, no say! Bollocks!
Razor @ 27 – Couldn’t agree more about the compulsory voting. It always seemed that the people who complain most (about the rabid left-wing extremists running the union (as most of the comments seemed to think what happens on the ABC website)) are those least likely to be bothered voting in the first place.
Also, if people want true representation, why not broaden the whole thing and go for something a little more … well, representative? Create viable representative groups – e.g. based on faculty OR student types (e.g. external students) – as a way of giving people a voice. So rather than voting for some nob you’ve never met or likely to meet, elect someone you are actually likely to pass in a corridor. That way you’re likely to get a more diverse range of people “on council” and perhaps a better chance at accountability.
Also, we don’t expect our pollies to “do the math” on budgets etc – all this is usually just a policy decision and treasury et al go off and come back with the detail. Why not do the same with the Student Associations? Take away their direct control of money and instead, allow them to set policy directions and hand over the funding the beauracrats who do it day in, day out?
I’d suggest that these student associations need to go out there and start advocating for students. I was at a block mode course a few years ago at JCU – during January when no-one else was there. Here we were paying full fees only to find no services available. The computer labs were all locked – the Library was closed – the only thing open (oddly enough) was the Union Bookshop. So everyone was complaining at having paid truckloads and not receiving any service and yet there was a) no-one to complain to (the Uni was still in “holiday mode”) nor was there anyone (other than the poor faculty staff) to hear our complaints. In this age of “user pays”, perhaps the Student Associations should be looking at “consumer advocacy” as a way of winning over punters!!!