Student services levy splits strapped sector
The higher education sector is divided over whether the federal government should introduce a levy on students or give institutions extra money based on student enrolment numbers, as universities seek a solution to funding shortfalls created by voluntary student unionism (VSU).
In submissions to the commonwealth's examination of VSU reforms brought in by the Howard government, universities said they had reached their limit in terms of redirecting teaching and research funds towards student services.
The universities pointed out that VSU had had a positive effect in eliminating complacency in student associations.
But they urged the government to introduce new funding arrangements with regard to VSU, and a number of institutions made dire predictions about student unions.
One school of thought on the issue is that the government should provide universities with additional funds based on student load. Institutions would then dedicate this cash to student services.
A different suggestion is for a compulsory levy to be applied to students, which they could defer under a HECS-style arrangement.
But there is debate in both camps over whether the extra money should be controlled by universities or student organisations. In its submission, Monash University expressed its "definite preference" for government to provide universities with additional funding largely based on student enrolment numbers, "in the order of one-third of previous funding derived from compulsory amenities fees".
"Monash proposes that a portion of this funding [20 to 30 per cent] be compulsorily directed towards capital/infrastructure expenditure." Under the plan, universities would have to account for all expenditure and demonstrate funds had been committed "wholly and solely" to student amenities and services.
"Stringent reporting requirements would allay student association fears that funds would be lost/redirected within university administrations."
But Melbourne University has backed the introduction of a HECS-style scheme. Under its proposal, a compulsory levy would be charged on a per-student, six-monthly basis, which could be paid upfront or deferred along the lines of HECS.
The levy would be set by the minister within guidelines developed by the sector.
The payment would be applied to a yet to be defined set of student support and amenity services, with a "modest amount of funds" dedicated to maintaining student representation. But others, including the Australian Technology Network of universities, said a HECS-style loan would only add to student debt and raise the administrative burden for institutions.
The ATN wanted the government to provide annual grant funding targeting the development of student facilities.
"Universities identify those services that best meet the needs of their student profile [including socio-economic and ratio of international to domestic students] and enter into a service agreement with the government to fund on a per-capita basis," the ATN submission says.
"The model would include requiring an annual budget and quarterly review of performance of services provided."
The Council of Australian Postgraduate Associations supports the introduction of a HECS-style arrangement, but has insisted student organisations, and not universities, be in charge of the money.
"These funds must also be administered independently by students, without extraneous conditions or burdensome compliance conditions being enforced either by government or universities outside of basic reporting requirements," CAPA said.
The Minister for Youth and Sport, Kate Ellis, is expected to receive a report on the VSU issue by the end of the month.
In submissions to the commonwealth's examination of VSU reforms brought in by the Howard government, universities said they had reached their limit in terms of redirecting teaching and research funds towards student services.
The universities pointed out that VSU had had a positive effect in eliminating complacency in student associations.
But they urged the government to introduce new funding arrangements with regard to VSU, and a number of institutions made dire predictions about student unions.
One school of thought on the issue is that the government should provide universities with additional funds based on student load. Institutions would then dedicate this cash to student services.
A different suggestion is for a compulsory levy to be applied to students, which they could defer under a HECS-style arrangement.
But there is debate in both camps over whether the extra money should be controlled by universities or student organisations. In its submission, Monash University expressed its "definite preference" for government to provide universities with additional funding largely based on student enrolment numbers, "in the order of one-third of previous funding derived from compulsory amenities fees".
"Monash proposes that a portion of this funding [20 to 30 per cent] be compulsorily directed towards capital/infrastructure expenditure." Under the plan, universities would have to account for all expenditure and demonstrate funds had been committed "wholly and solely" to student amenities and services.
"Stringent reporting requirements would allay student association fears that funds would be lost/redirected within university administrations."
But Melbourne University has backed the introduction of a HECS-style scheme. Under its proposal, a compulsory levy would be charged on a per-student, six-monthly basis, which could be paid upfront or deferred along the lines of HECS.
The levy would be set by the minister within guidelines developed by the sector.
The payment would be applied to a yet to be defined set of student support and amenity services, with a "modest amount of funds" dedicated to maintaining student representation. But others, including the Australian Technology Network of universities, said a HECS-style loan would only add to student debt and raise the administrative burden for institutions.
The ATN wanted the government to provide annual grant funding targeting the development of student facilities.
"Universities identify those services that best meet the needs of their student profile [including socio-economic and ratio of international to domestic students] and enter into a service agreement with the government to fund on a per-capita basis," the ATN submission says.
"The model would include requiring an annual budget and quarterly review of performance of services provided."
The Council of Australian Postgraduate Associations supports the introduction of a HECS-style arrangement, but has insisted student organisations, and not universities, be in charge of the money.
"These funds must also be administered independently by students, without extraneous conditions or burdensome compliance conditions being enforced either by government or universities outside of basic reporting requirements," CAPA said.
The Minister for Youth and Sport, Kate Ellis, is expected to receive a report on the VSU issue by the end of the month.