The
Student Union as a Social Enhancer.
The purpose of this paper is to analyse the history of student unions in the Australian education sector up to and including the present moment. The purpose is to first explore the history of these unions since federation. The progressive narrative will cover the surface of what transpired over the century with regard to the evolution of campus unions. There are several markers along the way, the most notable is the Vietnam war era. From this point on, student unionism embraced forms of boundless politics and the paper thus begins to delve into some of the critical points in union digression. Historicism gives way to circumstantial exposure. From there the analysis becomes more critical as the paper and the evolution of campus politics reaches a point where the unions are facing both legislated disempowerment and de-financing. Hence there has been a steady stream of argument in recent years against federal attempts to force voluntary student unionism through the Senate. With several recent inquiries into higher education came the fright of the student unions.
The enquiries were and are perceived by critics as a crusade to destroy student voice, amongst other things. This paper follows the passage of potentially self-destructive progress that unions have followed up to the present era where radical unions other than student ones are perceived by the government as a national menace. At this critical juncture in history, with the changes in national education and a subsequent structural vacuum through the 2003-04 period, the paper further analyses the arguments for and against the VSU (Voluntary Student Unionism) debate. The ideological freedom-of-association of an individual, versus the right-to-dissent in union, is at the core of the debate. The battleground is a national political economy and participation (apart from the usual strikes and militancy), and the participants are the upholders of Left and Right political perspectives.
During the early 1970s, compulsory student unionism was supported by all sides of politics. Student involvement in off campus issues are believed to have first drawn the ire of conservative forces in Australia at about that time. By 1976, the Australian Liberal Students Federation (ALSF) began launching campaigns aimed at introducing anti-student union type legislation. In a precedential case -Clarke vs University of Melbourne- a judge found that the Student Union was charging fees beyond its powers; however this was overturned by the Supreme Court. Legal assaults from both sides of union politics followed, and by 1994 VSU was introduced in West Australia (WA), and in Victoria in 1995. University culture suffered in WA under VSU.
Whilst pro-VSU groups
such as the ALSF use solid arguments that present a reasonably
rational view of the fiscal unfairness of compulsory financed unionism, there
are other rational arguments that support paid unions and organisations. For
example, the benefits gained by a student in a unionist campus may be to that
person an unknown factor. Yet to suggest that therefore the representation
should be removed is a weak argument. Because, even though a person may not
perceive any benefit from the union, this does not therefore mean that there is
none. Any outward evidence of union support may not be immediately visible or
noticed. Nonetheless, there is a union presence. So then, what of the union?
Does it support the unseeing student? The answer of course, must be yes. The
union may not lend direct support to students, but that does not mean that any
positive enhancement by a union is not brought to bear on campus for the
satisfaction of unknowing students.
This positive influence may take many forms, not the least of which would be a localised deterrent against unwanted troubles in which a union might take action. Some of the better-known influences would be the traditional services, activities and lobbying provided by unions. Other actions include the mainstay of unionist principles, those being activism, strikes, protests and general militancy. Other enhancers such as interactive student support and timely case intervention all ultimately lead to the well-being of individuals. There are also enhancers like BBQs, Balls, and various forms of trivial pursuits that are all part of the traditional campus union history.
It is important to point out that the general
description of ‘Union’ used here refers to all types of student campus
organisations, guilds, councils, associations and so on. The university unions
of West Australia have been affected differently by governments than those in
the rest of Australia. To this end, they have not been fully included in the
overall historical analysis of this paper, but are generally included in this
dialogue as players behind in their own right. The arguments for and against VSU
will be compared and contrasted as various Senate committee submissions are
analysed and brought into conclusion.
The Australian Federation was founded by the hearts of well intentioned men imbued by enlightenment in 1901. In 1906, Melbourne University (UM) became the first campus to introduce a fee charging system to support Australia’s first Student Representative Council; it was based on a British version from Edinburgh University. Alfred Deakin of the ‘Protectionist’ political party was Prime-minister. The model of student fees for student services grew from the 1906 foundations as more universities were built around Australia.
During World War One, Australia’s universities experienced light expansion, and even more so during the repatriation phase after the war. Fees for associations were introduced in the University of Adelaide, University of Tasmania, University of Sydney and the University of West-Australia (UWA), as well as various others. A report into the university unions in the 1920’s by the British University Grants Committee had found that university associations were then, essential.
Throughout the 1920’s, various other educational institutions began forming groups and guilds. College and institute students gathered, and like other higher education counterparts, began collecting fees and charges that were pooled to support various activities. And by 1926 a national student body had formed the Australian Universities Students Union (AUSU), but it dissolved in that year. It would soon be replaced by the National Union of Australian University Students (NUAUS), and this would grow after the Second World War. During the mid 1940s, the NUAUS was the subject of praise by the Universities Commission: ‘The Commission wishes to place on record its appreciation of the value of conference with the representatives of Student Unions’.
Universities before the war were funded by state grants, student fees and donations from private organisations. By 1939, most universities had a fee collection process in place for campus associations; except for UWA, which had been affected by a change in state legislation. There had been no significant Federal Government intervention or input into education until 1929; at which point the Canberra University College was built and thus aligned with UM. In this period the National Party was in power until October, after which the ALP (Australian Labor Party) were elected to term.
The war changed education; the way it was delivered, the type of education, the funding and the overall purpose of education all came under a policy direction that had an eye on imperial, though more specifically, Commonwealth needs. The Curtin government introduced a financial assistance scheme, the Commonwealth Financial Assistance Scheme, and soon after the Chifley government established the Commonwealth Reconstruction Training Scheme. These introductions carried with them an exponential growth of student organisations.
From 1944 to 1951 ‘Community life on campus was enriched by an increased number of sporting groups, educational clubs and political associations’. However, with this came ‘a distinct shift to the left in student opinion’. The Menzies Liberal government had come into power in December 1949. ‘The membership of campus labor clubs swelled and the left gained greater influence in student representative activities’. So, from the mid 1940s through to the early 1950s, universities experienced ‘vibrancy’ as the rise of the political Left was countered by the political Right on campus.
Giles believed this was due -in part- to the influence and energies of the ‘Reconstruction Trainees’. General expansionism was experienced by universities as they passed a slump in the early 1950’s. In 1956, the Menzies government appointed a committee to ascertain the burgeoning needs of both the universities and their students. Sir Keith Murray reported in September 1957, with conclusions that more funding and Commonwealth supported expansion was required. The Murray Report reflected the concerns of the AVCC (Australian Vice Chancellors Committee) and others saying ‘In universities of the Australian type, the importance cannot be overstressed of the provision of some adequate meeting ground for students from all faculties. The Students’ Union should be the focus’.
From 1958, university numbers and student bodies both grew markedly, as did campus expansions. Nine institutions were introduced into the education sector in the period up to 1964. Yet again, in 1961, the Menzies government set another committee into action. This one however, was a lot slower to reach conclusions. It took about three years to finalize its efforts. The reason for this long-term project is not explained by Giles. Nonetheless, ‘Student organisation was given a high priority’. The committee found that:
‘We consider it desirable to foster the growth of largely self-governing student organisations, and should expect students to accept responsibility for expressing their own view about policy matters in which they have a vital interest. Students should be primarily responsible for running their own organisations, including the financial administration of such bodies as the Students Union’.
Giles in 1992, goes on to summarize and conclude that the views of the committee gave great support to the needs and values of student unions. ‘For most of the history of student organisation in Australia, it has been actively encouraged by campus and government authorities and sustained by students and others desiring to enrich the quality of campus life’.
At first (Giles relates) burgeoning student activism brought on by the distaste of the Vietnam War, was not disliked. However, over the years as the protest movement regressed into militancy and violence that swept several western nations, disapproval by higher authorities began to emerge. Either the threat of uncontrollable civil disturbance; or the potential loss of political hegemony (or worse, democracy) worried the political elites. Out of this concern came legal proceedings and general attempts by university councils and others to quash the student protest movement. And in time came Commonwealth political pressure. Part of university attempts to stop on-campus militancy and rioting was to try to affect the distribution of monies owed by campus’ to unions. Also, fines and other measures were meted out. This in turn only served to intensify and refocus the student protest efforts after the Vietnam troop recall in late 1971.
A political reactionary process became embedded in the Australian education sector from that era. After having sent Australian troops off to battle due to some western imperial concerns and thus call to arms, the Liberal government reacted to national recall demands. And now, responding to pressure in Parliament, the Federal government found itself reacting against the student associations.
The introversion spawned by the war and subsequent protests, now spawned introspection in the higher education sector. Some universities now pressured government to start investigations into how monies in the education sector were and should be used. Voluminous injunctions against improper expenditure to and by unions; and the ceaseless party room questions, led to the first government questioning of education finance as applied to student organisations. In late 1972, the Federal education minister wrote a letter to all Vice-chancellors ‘seeking details of the means for which Student Representative Council moneys are applied’. On the 2nd of December, Giles argues, ‘The change in government was accompanied by a shift in attitude towards the student organisations and the pressure that had been mounting for universities to restrict the funding and/or activities of student organisations was relieved’, because on the 5th of December 1972, Labor came to power.
The Vietnam protest era had left an indelible stain on the psyche of the Australian Liberal party. Up until this era, Giles relates that campus politics was condoned and accepted by the majority of stakeholders, as was the fees for unionism. However, controversial expenditure of monies, and the abstract political use of these during the Vietnam era, was the impetus for conservative Liberal practices to start affecting student unionism after then.
‘there has been a radical element in Australian student politics of varying degrees of organisation and influence in existence from at least the mid 1920s but it has never presented anything analogous to the challenge to traditional authority mounted by the student movement of the 1960s’, believes Giles.
He goes on to argue ‘The left gained greater influence in the governance of student representative organisations and the activities of these bodies were in part recast to reflect the various agendas of radical student groups’. Constitutional authority and funding provisions of unions were challenged, in reflex, by the force of law. Both civil and criminal processes were brought to bear in the war years. Authoritive types sought legislative and disciplinary mandates as they attempted to curb the activist and militant Left, the over expenditure, the nature of fiscal use and the intended outcomes and applications of monies. As well, the communal ideologues of the union movement were also brought into question as a direct effect of the introspection mechanisms.
Interestingly, Giles appears to introduce dialectic blame into the argument at this point (in his book, as well as in history) and firmly establishes (both his personal alliances and) blame for the writ problems that student associations were experiencing on the conservatives: ‘There appeared to be little recognition that the radical student movement was not sustained by student unions and, indeed, had developed in many cases in spite of student organisation activities’. He then argues ‘Though there were strong denials at the time, there is now sufficient evidence to affirm that NCC/DLP groups were a driving force behind the series of writs issued to student organisations in the early 1970s’. The political cleavage is clearly established with Giles at this point. Giles also realises that the protest movement, political unrest, social unease and protracted higher education dilemmas all receded after the change of government in 1972 when Gough Whitlam led the ALP to victory at the polls.
However, the issues did not go away. In fact they began to dominate even ALP politics as the different interest groups scrambled to press their viewpoints. Where once there was a unified defiance against the supposed ideology of conservative groups, now Left leaning organisations began to fracture along party lines. 1973 appears to be the root of the now ever-present argument of free education because Kim Beazley [Snr] introduced the oral paradigm of fee free education and the subsequent Act by 1975; Federal government was then to pay for all costs associated with higher education.
The NUAS (National Union Australian Students), and soon after the AUS (Australian Union of Students), argued at the time that government payment of amenities and association dues constituted an unacceptable level of government intrusion in to university autonomy. This argument was reflected in the Commonwealth States Grants Act passed at the time, which exempted payments to student associations, amenities and sports associations. The political Left have fought ever since to recoup this tactical error; thus free fee arguments are still used and futilely fought for, even today.
Even from before Federation through to the 1940s, fees in higher education were the accepted norm. All parties involved were relatively happy and supported the status-quo in the education sector. After the 1940s, there began to be some questioning on various issues in the sector, and then came the Vietnam War. This was the impetus for a protracted futile struggle, and contested education structures up to the present day.
HISTORY
since VIETNAM
‘Education
for all’ was introduced in 1973, following on from the Interim Schools
Committee that had delivered findings in May 1973; ‘thus attaining one of the
early goals of the Labor movement in making all education in Australia, from
primary to university level, free and open to all’. The legislation was
short-lived however, following the repeal in early 1975 by the newly elected
Frazer Liberal government. From
this point on, the struggle between Left and Right student politics became
arbitrary, bitter; and will probably extend into the new century of education
and the accompanying corporate delivery model –the HESA (Higher
Education Support Act) 2003 and its amendments.
The impending VSU debate is acknowledged by Giles ‘The campaign for VSU emerged as part of this process of limiting the effectiveness of left control over student organisations’. He cites:
‘accounts tend to
suggest that Liberal student activists, motivated by issues of conscience,
organised around a principled position on the question of freedom of
association and lobbied students and those in authority to act to defend
individual rights by abolishing compulsory student union membership.’
and states that the conservative ALSF:
‘would have included amongst its adherents, genuine libertarians, moral conservatives, some concerned about the use of student union funds for non-university purposes, careerists and others, bound together by their desire to end left-wing and feminist control of student organisations.
From this period on, VSU has become an ideological (and individual) freedom of association debate, of un-associated individuals’ rights to contest issues. This being countered by support for the notion of ‘autonomy’, autonomy for both universities and their patronized student associations.
Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, various education based debates were found argued before state and Commonwealth parliaments. In 1983/84 student union legislations were amended in the Commonwealth, Victorian and West Australian parliaments. Head held the view (in 1979) that changes in education, as well as the views and contestations that took place were all inevitable in the 1970s. In spite of the incumbent government, ‘external forces in the shape of fiscal policy, demographic projections and uncertainty about the social function of schooling would have determined some of the political decisions in national education, regardless of the party in power’, were amongst the conclusions reached by Head.
EDUCATION
in CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY
The previous HEFA (Higher Education Funding
Act) 1988 allowed for amenities fees to be compulsorily collected by campus
institutions. The old Act received its mandate from Australia’s founding
institution, the Constitution. Section 25b of the act provides for grants to
support student organisations. Subsection 6a, enacts ‘the purpose of providing
benefits to students within the meaning of Section 51 (xxxiiia) of the Constitution’.
From this Act (1988) forward
to the present Act (2003) there had been a history of legislated collectable
union dues. Under the constitution, and brought in by the Labor government
under Hawke, student representation was an accepted and legitimate practice.
Even in 1901, at the enactment of the Constitution, some consideration had been
given then to the needs of students in the education sector. The constitutional
forefathers then wrote: ‘The provision of … benefits to students and family allowances’ (Australian Constitution:
51, xxxiiia).
The Parliament of 1988
included this subsection of the constitution into the HEFA 1988 as a way
of embedding financial unionism into the education system for the theoretical
benefits of higher education students. The current debate, from the HESA
2003 forward, is about wether to retain this financed student representation or
not.
A
CONSTITUTIONAL CASE STUDY
In arguing the constitutional arrangement of section 25b of the HEFA in 1999, the AVCC sought legal advice from the Minter & Ellison legal group. Their case against VSU is based on the argument that ‘a declaration that the new provisions, should they be enacted, are beyond the legislative powers of the Commonwealth’. In defence of this stand, a Federal Government solicitor ‘advised the Government that it had power to legislate VSU’.
The Queensland government
research paper concluded that the VSU bill has the capacity to seriously
disrupt the social enhancement brought to campus by student associations. And
that many of these groups would ‘struggle to continue’. Yet Kemp argued
that the legislation would re-invigorate and revitalize these groups and
services. The bill aims to repeal sections 25a and b, as well as section 15,
and 18 of the HEFA 1988. Wherein, it is argued, section 25b of the HEFA
also currently provides for HECS funding through section 51 of the Commonwealth
Constitution.
The Queensland government
went on to tie fiscal ethics to the debate, questioning wether the legislative
and indeed Federal government has the right ‘to make laws over HECS liable
students is stronger, than that over other students’ (Collins 1999 p32). Minter
Ellison went on to advise ‘it is hard to see how [[that]]…effectuates the
expenditure of Commonwealth monies to promote a national system of higher
education’ and ‘it is also hard to see how the proposed condition protects the
purpose of the appropriation’.
In effect, Minter Ellison
are once again questioning the true nature of the bill, and in fact appear to
be identifying an ideological perspective of the bill. Queensland Government
followed through with ‘the paragraph does not seem to act to protect the national
system of higher education’. These points are linking Commonwealth operating
grants to structural changes in the delivery of higher education and ancillary
services. Queensland Government notes ‘The ministers second Reading Speech does
not offer any link to a Commonwealth power’. A question then arises, is the AVCC
argument responsible for introducing ideological debate in to the arena, or is
an ideological influence drawn because the possibility exists that the
Commonwealth Government is withholding its legal, constitutional and
legislative powers from untimely scrutiny. This is yet to be determined as the
legislation is set to be debated again in the Senate in the near future.
The Federal Government
policy paper indicates clearly what they intend; they argue against paid
student organisations. The ‘Backing Australia’s Future’ policy paper in Section
13 is very brief, yet specific ‘The government will be introducing separate
legislation to ensure that membership of student organisations is optional and
universities do not collect fees that are not directly related to course
provision’. This is in clear contrast
to the stated policy held by the AVCC. To reiterate their stand, they
insist ‘the student should still be required to pay a nominated source a sum of
money equivalent to the membership fee levied by the student organisations’.
Without doubt, the AVCC will continue to argue strongly on this point;
that, as with fees, they should retain the ‘prerogative of universities to
determine the condition of enrolment’ (AVCC 2004). Nelson in the house Hansard
of September 17 (House of Representatives) argues ‘An institution may have its
approval as a higher education provider revoked if it does not comply with
these [VSU] requirements, and as a result would not receive any grants under
the act if that occurred’.
In referring to the Act, Nelson was alluding to the section of the HESA that had not yet passed the Senate. The HESA, after having received the royal assent on December three 2003, did not contain ratified sections that outlawed paid unionism. Instead, the bill was passed by the senate with section 25b, subsection 6a of the HEFA 1988 still intact and functioning. Nonetheless, Federal government is prepared. It has a bill to amend the HESA, and to insert a proposed section 19-37, which in brief, encompasses the following:- That a provider (of education) must not compel a person to pay union dues, or to become a member of an association. No monies shall be collected that are not directly related to a course (Bills Digest No 58; 2003-04).
The notion of federally sanctioned university autonomy was also in question during 2003. University boards have historically upheld this course, and so too has the Commonwealth government. This preference is argued by universities ‘hand in hand’ with the right -of universities- to charge union dues. The two appear to be inseparable, as if they were a necessary alliance. However this may no longer be the case, as the AVCC policy document of 2003 on student unions now appears to be open to VSU.
The AVCC (Vice Chancellors Committee) maintain a policy on student organisations that argues a case for social enhancement. They recognise the need and the advantage: of having students operating an organisation for their own welfare at the least. Their policy statement reads: ‘Where student organisations provide an extensive range of services which the universities recognise as essential, their financial viability is essential’. The value of student organisations on campus is not in question; the delivery of fun is an essential part of the matrix in the delivery of higher education, and is a counterbalance to the intense rigours of concentrated study in universities.
However, the AVCC is
maintaining a split policy on the outcomes of the current higher education
debate. Paragraph three of the policy document gives the reader a clearer
indication of this stance: ‘Universities strongly support the view that fees
charged for the provision of services for students are an obligation of
enrolment’. This statement clearly supports the notion and indeed clearly
evokes the current legislated right of universities to manage and charge fees.
The notion of minor fee charges is carried forward in the argument of the
paragraph to embrace and equate the fees with certain types of ‘service
provision’. The services usually, and in their words ‘traditionally’ maintained
by student unions. This is fully acknowledged in paragraph two which says: ‘In
every university there are essential services and facilities that are provided
for students which are both an important element in the social and cultural
life of universities and a part of the education process’ (AVCC 2004).
However, there is an allowance
in the policy paper that would accommodate changes in Federal education
legislation. If the higher education legislation were to be amended in favour
of VSU, then the AVCC policy paper gives universities an internal
option for the delivery of campus social services. With the policy option in
paragraph ten, the AVCC is likely to have attached several strategies
that would allow their version (a corporate version) of services delivery under
a label not unlike Access and Equity. Wether these services would be a mirror
image of the social enhancement models that are currently provided by
traditional means, is arguable given that they would likely be delivered with
some kind of covert corporate intent designed to increase stakeholder profits.
Meaning that it is very
likely that the corporation (education institution) creates or allows a campus
situation to flower, and then sends in its own people to harvest the problem.
Thus supposedly justifying the existence of the allied service. Paragraph ten
of the AVCC policy says: ‘the student should still be required to pay a
nominated source’. Clearly then, the AVCC intention is to continue the
amenities fee collection process, even if the Senate passes the VSU
bill.
Concerned by the push in
2003 of the education reforms, JCU (James Cook University) approached
the Australian Consumer and Competition Commission (ACCC) about the
policy it was using to collect amenities fees. There was a concern at JCU
of the economic practice called ‘third line forcing’ as described in the Trade
Practices Act 1974. In asking the ACCC wether the conduct of one
organisation forcing individuals to buy goods and services of another
organisation is allowable, the ACCC eventually found in favour of JCU
in light of new evidence provided. However, they had initially prepared against
the collection enforcement policy, and were about to act on this initial
finding.
Since the Senate EWREC committees were launched into
the recent round of inquiries into higher education from 1999, there has been a
lot of participation expressed by concerned bodies. Various submissions to the
EWREC are further analysed here, keeping in mind that these are likely to be
representative of the general dialogue that surrounds the unions and the VSU
debate. The submissions included here are from the more prominent players in
the higher education sector. They provide, in brief, the full spectrum analysis
of the Left versus Right political discourse of the question at hand.
A
FUTURE HACKED?
It is noted that the Senate Employment, Workplace
Relations and Education References Committee (EWRERC) document of November 2003 (entitled Hacking Australia’s
Future) inquiring into Higher Education and the HESA bill included no
submissions on behalf of CDU in relation to VSU.
It is possible that the
committee foresaw that VSU would be so controversial at the time,
therefore, that it would not be seriously pushed by the Liberals. As the VSU
bill was split from the HESA bill, the Senate was thus not in a position
to debate the bill properly, consequently there is little on the Hansard
record.
The Committee (EWRERC)
has made no recommendation in regards to VSU -other than to reject it-
and it is noted that there were recommendations given on other matters of the
reference committee. Whilst VSU was included in the report, it appeared
to be either a sundry item, if not that, then an item for later and greater debate.
Whilst the terms of
reference were encapsulated in five categories that dealt with the principles
of the governments higher education package; VSU was not included here.
The report gave forty recommendations affecting the HESA bill. The
thirty-ninth was a recommendation to reject the VSU bill ‘in its
entirety’.
The full report was
commended to the Senate on 7/11/03; and the foreword stated ‘Finally, [as part
of the HESA 2003 bill] the Government has used the occasion of this
legislation to attack the industrial rights of university staff and the
democratic rights of students to form associations that provide them with
services and representation’.
The committee was made up of
three Labor, two Liberal and one Australian Democrat senators. It came out
against the reform package after deliberations saying that the ‘Crossroads’
enquiry (an earlier Senate inquiry on universities) was conducted well; but
that the entire effort up until the tabling of the HESA bill was a charade;
a pretence at consultation that did not listen to the stakeholders.
The committee found the VSU
bill is an obsession of government; that the previous push in 1999 was
essentially the same as this one, and that the arguments have not changed. That
the argument had always been, and still is, one of ideological libertarianism
versus obligatory individual payment toward a community amenity. ‘That this is
a wildly impractical stance to take is easily demonstrated to the overwhelming
number of university stakeholders’.
‘There is no other way for a satisfactory level of service to be provided for students except through student organisations which, as they run at cost, depend on fees paid by all students to operate the range of services they provide’. A questionable point is argued however, that student organisations are a ‘natural monopoly’. Other good reasons were found for retaining Unions, ‘students benefit…an important institution’.
The committee also acknowledged that it had ‘neither read nor heard’ suggestions that students had no place in a representational capacity in such areas as university governing bodies. Contrarily in fact, the evidence and hearsay suggested a great preference for student input. The mere involvement of students in such areas of responsibility can only enhance the outcomes of individuals, this evidence could give great weight toward the retention of unions with a sight on the training and exposure capacity given to students through these organised environments.
The Senate Committee fully
addresses student participation in student organisations in chapter five of the
report. Upon tabling the Bill on the seventeenth of September 2003, Minister Nelson
spoke, insisting that the Liberal Government had extended freedom of
association to the workforce from unions, yet in higher education institutions
this was not yet the case. Whilst now employees were not compelled to join a
union, this was not the case for students. His intention is to insert fairness
into the quality and accountability aspects of the impending HESA 2003
legislation. The argument is ‘compulsion cannot be a valid basis for an
organisation that purports to represent the interests of its members’, and
‘This is not to suggest that student associations, guilds or unions do not
provide services that are valuable to students on campuses’.
The Nelson department, DEST
(Department Education Science & Training) argument against VSU cited
the Trade Practices Act 1974 wherein compulsion to join was anticompetitive in
an open market, proving a barrier for external service providers to come and
operate on campus. This was countered by University New South Wales (UNSW)
students’ guild, which recognised that it was the highly irregular nature of
campus service requirements that is the barrier. With this point it is possible
to realise that the long standing, traditional campus service providers are the
ones that are best positioned to continue their task into the new century.
Privatisation of services
was addressed by the committee as it had earlier been in 1999. With the
evidence at hand, there was a strong likelihood that under present structures
and economic arrangements, services would have to be heavily subsidised by
universities in support of current union services if the VSU bill is
passed. This would vary from campus to campus and region to region.
Issues such as campus
hygiene and asset maintenance were addressed by the evidence from UNE
(University of New England) student representatives to the EWRERC
committees. A submission (in 1999) from Wagga Wagga’s Charles Sturt University
(NSW) recognised the potential redundancy payout figures; for regional
universities they could prove to be extensive, even requiring universities to
step in and pay the balance of monies owed after forced redundancies of union
members. There is potential for considerable unforseen cost.
The committee’s conclusions
on privatising student run services led to a realisation that, as with the West
Australian example, campus’ would experience an immediate loss of some
services. And that results, varying from campus to campus would range from
disastrous to minimal.
‘The committee considers it likely that in the event of this bill
passing, universities would need to heavily subsidise the operations of student
amenities…the administrative burdens on universities would be considerable….
The Democrats support the
recommendation to discount VSU. Whilst the Australian Greens compiled a
report to the committee in full support of the findings and recommendations of
chapter five of the report.
The report recognised the
political contributions that student organisations make, though it was stated
that this was ‘only touched on during the public hearings’. A quote by the
Greens was added that hints at the possible motives of Government: ‘the
Government moves against student organisations appear motivated by the desire
to weaken, if not eliminate, the likelihood of any anti-government political
movement among students’. Government may be concerned about the now embedded
tradition of left-wing dominated student organisations whom are possibly
populated by novice or naïve, if not thoroughly uneducated, political
activists.
Given that student activism of the Vietnam era subsequently proved successful, and thus became traditionalist in many student actions since that period. The situations, needs and arguments held then, bore little resemblance to student political directions today. Government has since sought to solve the destabilising potential of student activism, and this is reflected in the so-called anti-union push since then, to the current VSU scenario today.
With regard to advocacy the report found
‘Whilst universities may feel
compelled to pick up some of the service provision student organisations
currently provide if anti-student organisation legislation was introduced, the
question remains as to whether universities would be in a position to or
whether it would be appropriate that they pick up the advocacy responsibilities
currently carried by student organisations’.
In the Politics
of Education, Dudley and Vidorich realised the potential social
divisiveness associated with economic rationalism and its effects on the
commercial delivery of education. They concluded:
‘We take the position that whilst
economic goals have a legitimate place in higher education, there are other
essential purposes (including cultural and social goals) which should not be
discarded in the drive to integrate the whole of education more closely with
the economy’.
The Senate committee -it can only be concluded- was thoroughly aggrieved by the VSU bill, and was thoroughly appalled by what it saw as an ‘outrageous intrusion of government in the internal affairs of universities’; as if all universities were about to be ‘hacked’. A unionist analysis is introduced with a note pointing out that conscientious objectors to union affiliation are catered for by the current rules and laws in all universities that allow students to adopt ‘freedom of association’ principles. Yet they do not dodge paying union fees for this privilege.
CAPA
Council of Australian Postgraduate Association (CAPA)
in their August 2003 submission to the EWRERC
Committee, reinforced student organisations as the preferred provider of social
services on campus. They reiterated the April 2003 ruling set down by the ACCC
on the JCU enrolment policy, and acknowledged that JCU was likely
to ‘require the fees in order to provide similar services to the student
organisations if those organisations did not themselves provide such services’
And in the case of student representation ‘the case of advise and advocacy for
students in dispute with universities procedures, we believe it would be
inappropriate for the university itself to play such a role’.
ACUMA
The Australian Campus Union Managers Association (ACUMA)
submission to the EWRERC Committee was largely the same and consistent
in content and debate with others of the anti-VSU genre. However, there
was one notable philosophy missing from the ACUMA paper; they failed to
appeal in full support of student associations. In fact, whilst they, as others
have, supported the indisputable need for campus services and pastoral care.
They in no place gave support to unions. Whilst they gave unfettered authority
to the idea of service provision, their dichotomised logic lay in who
ultimately manages the services.
Australia
has about thirty-nine universities, and ACUMA management membership is
currently spread over ninety per-cent of Australian universities; they say. And
herein lies ACUMA’s latent, aggressive managerial secrets. They, like
the AVCC, appear to have a policy stance that would enable them to shift
their support base horizontally if there was a change in amenities fee
legislation.
Rather than stating and thus giving
qualified support to campus organisations, they are in full support of the
business of service provision. Their introductory summary states ‘that
universities be permitted to retain their statutory powers to levy compulsory
fees…for the provision of amenities and services within their academic
communities’. Therefore potentially allowing access to, should legislation
annihilate the unions, a continuos stream of accessible finance, an intact but
immobilised infrastructure, and a place to insert the national managerial base
currently held by ACUMA. A fine academic outcome indeed.
In
keeping with managerial practices everywhere, the moral managers of today would
merely shift their allegiance to the new corporate god, and continue as if VSU
had never occurred. Herein lies the
irrelevancy of what the government is trying to do. In the twenty-first
century, where users pay for everything, the VSU bill is irrelevant and
archaic.
For
two reasons; a) that the old established order is likely to be usurped
by a new more aggressive model. And b), the apparent ideological attempt
to snuff out political activism by unions will not be stopped by strangling the
present systems simply because they are poorly managed. Government needs to
re-establish political order in the governance of campus organisations.
From
the outset ACUMA establishes the policy grounding for the pending
corporate delivery of campus services. This covert theme is continued
throughout the paper and ‘The danger in tampering with the existing campus
service infrastructure model within the higher education sector… is that
Government would unwittingly cause an adverse outcome for the higher education
sector as a whole’. Graciously, various operating finances are given to support
ACUMA’s claim, including their seven-thousand national members.
They also catalogue the largest list of
services lost if the current bill passes in its present form. More than
twenty-eight types of support, service and ancillaries would be lost, along
with fourteen-hundred jobs of which over fifty per-cent are casual. Morale and
status quo would also dissolve according to them.
NUS
The National Union of Students (NUS) go one step further in
their EWRERC submission
and description of the bill, calling it the ‘anti-student organisation
legislation’; which it is not. NUS claims:
‘Ever since the early days of the Fraser Government almost every
regressive attack by Coalition government’s on students has been followed by
anti-student organisation legislation to undermine student opposition to
unpopular policies’.
At
least with this statement, the NUS is prepared to get closer to the core
issue facing the campus union sector. Politics practiced by unions can be
construed as controversial, if not unqualified and un-solicited. And it is here
that the counter-VSU comrades lay claim to the ‘ideological’ perspective
embedded in the traditional hate/hate debate that is omnipresent on national
campuses; with no end in sight. And with no adequate political solutions
offered, apart from the Federal Governments’ perspective.
DUSA
A Deakin University Student Association (DUSA) briefing paper
(2003) argues a slightly different perspective when compared with others. This paper believes the VSU campaign
is part of a thirty-year ‘crusade’ to silence student organisations; no
explanation is given for this belief, or what might be driving the crusaders.
Whilst the various types of issues students have campaigned for over the years
are proudly enunciated, no explanation is ever paraded in any submission that
attempts to explain what has incurred the ire of conservatives.
This
profound lack of explained analysis is, of itself, a description of the
ignorance of arguments that are used to belt the VSU problem into
insignificance. Nihilist practices of the political Left, when used against the
conservative upholders of VSU, all to often distort the outcomes. The
relative altruism that is subsequently achieved is not always a true reflection
of the desired outcomes of the Left; but rather is a consequential environment
left behind from a milieu of infectious negativity that was used to achieve the
outcome.
In
this way, as with most unionist type activity, student organisations bring
pressure to bear and lay claim only to outcomes that they like. And
aggressively reject all that they do not. The VSU bill is, and will in
future, be no exception to this ideological rule. Although complacency may rule
in 2004 as the Labor Party has domination in all state parliaments; this
complacency maybe enough to give powerful right-wingers the edge when the next VSU
push comes in to the Senate.
DUSA believes ‘the government misrepresents student unions by linking
membership of the Union to fees levied. This is not the case. No student
organisation has compulsory membership’ they argue.
NTUSU
The submission to the EWRER Committee by the President of the Northern Territory University Students Union (NTUSU), rejected in full all proposed changes to Higher Education by the HESA bill. The submission cited issues such as quality, sustainability, access, diversity, equity, and all manner of perceived fiscal trauma. The uneducated and un-critical response saw no good points at all with the education review, and the situation remains the same at the time of this writing.
The response was that NTUSU (2003):
‘strongly oppose the Nelson reforms
to higher education on the basis that: It will weaken the breadth of
offerings…compromise the educational opportunities for all
Territorians…Nelson’s emphasis on diversification and specialisation will be
detrimental to the education opportunities of Territorians’.
The mantra of CDUSU is to still reject the changes, ignore the fiscal windfall of CDU that came from the reforms, and at best, dispose of the Nelson-DEST departments as well as the Liberal government for good. In arguing against the flux of VSU lobbyists, NTUSU (2003) stated:
‘With the recent legislation being
passed through NT parliament, students have secured their representation on the
governance of NTU However this isn’t without difficulty. Nelson’s plans
to eliminate students from the peak governing bodies of Australians
Universities is a dangerous mistake’.
The paper oozed a sense of urgent, yet futile inevitability against what it saw was the mortifying tide of educational and unionist annihilation. There was no room, into the future, for the Nelson reforms and VSU.
POLITICAL VSU
The latest VSU
bill was introduced into the House of Representatives on the seventeenth of
September, 2003. The last attempt to introduce such a bill was in 1999
whereupon it was rejected by the Senate as well as the EWRER Committee
of 1999. The Bills Digest (No 58; 2003) adopts the WA model of VSU;
the principle argument is that students who are made to pay an amenities fee
tied to unions are not doing so of their own free will. This then (according to
government policy) is in breach of international political and civil rights.
The
Digest cites several case studies and set arguments that will be used here as
the politicised side of the debate is expanded. Opponents of student unions
argue that it is wrong to compel students to pay a fee to an organisation that
then engages in political campaigns that run contrary to other individuals’
beliefs. An example is given from the 1970s in which the AUS organised a
speaking tour in Australia of the hard-line Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO).
This is the form of prime example and argument that government is using to
counter student activism.
Perhaps the case might be such, that
unions claim the high moral ground in resisting certain (if not all)
Commonwealth Government actions and legislation. Now whilst political lobbying
by interest groups is welcome and occasionally solicited by the Commonwealth,
it is highly likely that power politics and radicalism is not. Particularly if
the group proves to be incompetent and not across all of the relevant political
detail, or exhibits extreme bias. The potentially destabilising affect of
misguided lobbying coupled with radicalisation can only be of concern to the
Commonwealth. A progressive debate on this point can only lead to nihilist
conclusions when taken up by majorative resistance.
It
is argued that the point of fee collection for student organisations (in
contrast to any other organisation) is plain wrong. Why should students and
taxpayers be forced to pay a fee if they wish to use campus facilities and
benefits, argues the Commonwealth. The dichotomy in this argument is clear,
particularly for taxpayers. The highest taxing government in Australia’s
history, finds its argument un-hypocritical that the campus tax type union fee
is just one too many for a minority of free citizens to bear.
In
fairness, the government has kept a balanced perspective in presenting the
Bills Digest to the House of Representatives, ‘It could also be argued that the
political and administrative structure sustained by compulsory membership and
fees provides one of the few avenues for young people to gain real experience in
practical political economy’.
Lim (2004) holds the
view that:
‘If a student opts not to be part of the
union, then s/he should not complain if the union adopts a position at the
university that is contrary to the student’s view. If a student wants to have a
say in the direction the union takes, then s/he should contribute towards the
running of the union’.
This
view, however, leaves unions open to exploitation by groups whom might be
motivated by agendas outside the campus environment; particularly if
conservative minded individuals do not interact with union administration.
An
article in the West Australian newspaper expressed the overall views of
campus administrators there, saying that union students are given greater
opportunity to practice and indulge in constructive activity. For all accounts
and purposes, campus organisations can operate like a training ground for
people. An apparatus not unlike pre-employment training and work experience.
Countering this, Government claims:
‘It has also been argued that it would be more efficient if services were left to private enterprise, rather than provided by student organisations with little managerial and commercial experience’.
A group of West
Australian tertiary administrators go on to say:
‘we repeat our considered view that a change
to voluntary fees would reduce the direct interest of students in Guild and
institutional affairs and would create a climate in which minorities would seek
to manipulate the Guilds to further their own political and other ends’.
Government responded by saying that the
whole situation was paternalistic and authoritarian. Arguing that WAs’
compelled choice for individuals not paying their amenities fees was evidence
of student preference not to do so in majorative numbers; a conundrum indeed.
There
is evidence however, that Government perhaps recognises an alternative to the VSU
bill. ‘It might also be argued that if university authorities regard the
activities supported by amenities and services fees as necessary and important,
then they should fund them from their own revenues’.
One
particular point of the Governments argument is the notion of a ‘free rider’.
The fact that government is arguing this point is yet another conundrum. The
notion in this context appears to match the rhetoric of the militant industrial
union slur ‘scabs’. These labels describe people whom get on-site benefits of
paid membership (because it is there) without paying anything.
With
the startling use by Government of the unionist type slur ‘This will prevent
“free riders”’, comes the question of what the Governments real posturing is;
and this needs to be considered. Is the Government serious about the VSU
push, or is it creating a situation where unions will be marginalised in
appearance, yet covert and embedded in practice. Weak stances like the unionist
‘free rider’ position will (in this scenario) fail on many levels, if it is
combined with political VSU.
ARE
STUDENT UNIONS OFF COURSE?
Cain and Hewitt are ambiguous, and do not draw any particular conclusions about the externalised political activism of student organisations. They instead defer to Ben Cass, President of the University of Melbourne Student Union in 2000 who said students are ‘appalling advocates for their own needs’ and that unions instead prefer to focus attentions on global affairs, leaving behind the more appropriate issues affecting students directly.
If this situation is indicative of the national trend in student politics, then of course it is possible to conclude that student organisations are off course. And if UM is taken as a national benchmark in quantitative case studies of universities’ union operational trends, then the figures given by Cain and Hewitt indicate a problematic apparatus. According to them, the voter turnout for student elections of representatives is ten per-cent or less.
It is certain then, that they are in clear and present danger of being exterminated with extreme prejudice by VSU. Particularly if the geopolitical interests -as well as national- and embedded left wing minority fiefdoms of the political participants were to be considered by peers as well as government, to be unwelcome, unqualified and bias in the extreme.
CONCLUSIONS
The overall analysis shows that student unions have
regressed in paradigm; from federation to this new century, they have gradually
worked to collect for themselves a bad name in the eyes of government.
Correspondingly, conservative forces have worked to limit the community of
left-wingers’ power to a point where they are no more influential than the
conservatives themselves.
Nonetheless, campus politics
is the bastion of the Left and it matters not what the argument is, but only
that it can be contested by those of the Left. At present, the submissions
above show, this is a strong national spectrum, particularly as Labor presently
rule in every state. Therefore the pressure on campus politics must be great,
and nihilist in practice, stifling campus culture. This can only be of concern
to conservative forces, and may be the entire basis of the VSU bill.
The ACCC almost set a
precedent for de-financing unions in 2003 when JCU approached them with
concerns about unions relative to the Trade Practices Act 1974. The ACCC
was about to rule in favour of a model of VSU, but overturned this
decision at the last moment citing ‘why this conduct [fee collection] is in the
public interest’.
With the impending corporate
delivery model of education under the HESA 2003, government needs to
take a closer look at the delivery of social enhancement on campus. The
impending VSU bill is currently believed by proponents to be the saviour
of human political and social rights. However, most stakeholders have (as
tradition dictates) disagreed with this view since its genesis. As with the
Labor caucus, unions have allied themselves with leftist politics. On the Right
are disenfranchised Liberal sympathisers such as the ALSF. These two
divide the fabric of campus political life; and the responsibility for managing
the nihilist policies of campus unions clearly lies with the campus incumbents
and their allies.
It must be acknowledged that this debate is far from conclusion. The crusaders involved in higher education mass debates over the last thirty years or so, have not by any means been able to reconcile -much less alter- the benchmark of agitation in education. It is for this reason, that the debate/conflagration continues, and the sector as a whole faces a new century in education without having the arguments resolved. It would appear that no parties have been able, in majorative terms, to bring forth solutions. Yet students, education and the supported unions have always been on the breast of government, nurtured and consoled.
Nonetheless, the
conservative/radical mantle continues to barbecue all interested parties. VSU
has plagued federal and state parliaments, and the education sector; committees
and inquiries have failed to find congruence. All parties see the value of
pre-qualified political participation, yet no party can come to a bi-lateral
agreement on the model of same.
From the insane years of the
Vietnam war, came the chasm of political division on campus. The divisive Left
perceived great power, and derived power from the troop withdrawal (which they
enabled) from the conflict. To this end unions consider themselves the vanguard
of ideology; all their machinations reflect this, and they thrive in a milieu
of this being more correct than the position of any government. Particularly if
the government is Liberal.
The methodology used by
unions during the Vietnam era is now embedded, reactionary and censored. A form
of activated social blackmail is used to effect outcomes. The degree of
abrasiveness activated is commensurate to the nature and perceived vitality of
any given argument to be fought by unions, such as VSU. It appears the
standard pro-Labor unions give little consideration as to whom they might
direct their radicalisation and so-on upon, if there were any change in
government. It remains to be seen wether dis-empowered Right leaning
individuals would find themselves to be even more of a target for social
agitation on campus in this event.
The general consensus and
diatribe emanating from the various submissions to the EWREC, suggests
that the likelihood of social-agitation would increase. VSU will in no
way prevent this, unless federal legislation is enacted to either monitor, or
dismantle completely, unions; or is aimed at producing and mandating
equilibrium. There is a solution however, a memorandum of understanding in the
cleavage of the stakeholders.
ACUMA Submission. 11/9/2003.
No 472. Submission to: Senate
Employment, Workplace
Relations and Education References Committee. Inquiry into higher education
funding and regulatory legislation.
http://www.avcc.edu.au/news/public_statements/publications/stuorg.Html
Backing Australia’s Future Policy Paper. 2003. Federal Government.
http://www.backingaustraliasfuture.gov.au/policy_paper/13.htm
Bills Digest No 58; 2003-04. Higher
Education Amendment (Abolition of
Compulsory Up-Front Student Union Fees)
Bill 2003.
http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bd/2003-04/04bd058.htm
Cain,. John. & John Hewitt. 2004. Off
Course.
Melbourne: Scribe Publications.
CAPA Submission. August 2003. Submission to:
Senate Employment,
Workplace Relations and
Education References Committee.
Inquiry into higher
education funding and regulatory legislation.
Constitution of the Australian Commonwealth. 1900 AD.
Collins,.
Kelly-Anne. July 1999. Research Bulletin No 7/99. Voluntary
Student
Unionism: Protecting the Rights of Australian Students.
Queensland Parliamentary Library.
Dudley,. Janice. &
Lesley Vidovich. 1995. The Politics of Education:
commonwealth schools policy
1973-1995.
Melbourne: The Australian
Council of Educational Research Ltd.
DUSA Submission. 30th April
2003. Release # MR 087/03.
http://www.deakin.edu.au/dusa/news/VSU_briefing_paper.doc
Giles,. Greg. 1992.
Burning Down the House: a view of the campaign for
voluntary student unionism. Adelaide: Council of South Australian
College Student Organisations.
Head,. Brian. & Allan, Patience. 1979. From Whitlam to Frazer.
Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
House of
Representatives. 2003. Higher
Education Support Amendment
(Abolition of Compulsory Up-front
Student Union Fees) Bill 2003.
http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/view_document.aspx?id=1445
&table=BILLS
Lim,. Richard. 14/4/04. Discussion at: ‘Pollies @ the Pub’ Forum.
Charles Darwin University.
Mc Kinlay,. Brian,
John. 1981. The ALP. A Short History of the
Australian
Labor Party.
Melbourne: Heinemann Publishers Australia Pty Ltd.
NTUSU Submission. 15 /8/03.
No 370. Written submission to the: Senate
Employment, Workplace
Relations and Education References
Committee. on: The
Nelson Higher Education Review -
Backing Australia’s Future.
Nelson,. Dr Brendan. 17
/11/2003. HESA (Abolition of
compulsory up-front student
union fees) Bill 2003: second reading.
House of Representatives
Hansard.
NUS Submission. 21/8/03. No
411. Submission to: Senate Employment,
Workplace Relations and
Education References Committee.
Inquiry into higher education funding and regulatory legislation.
Senate Committee Report. November 2003. Senate
Employment,
Workplace Relations and
Education References Committee.
Hacking Australia’s Future:
Threats to institutional autonomy,
academic freedom and student
choice in Australian higher
education.