Adelaide Student Politics

Posted: 9th of September

The University of Adelaide today released a student survey. An email informing students of it was sent out at 1pm. By the time I tried to do it (at 3:40pm), the survey had closed, 'due to high response rates'. I'm not the only one to have this problem.
If the survey opens again, you may want to fill it out.

Update: It's working now. You should definately fill it out. Complain about the printers while you're at it, god knows how much trouble they've given me.

Posted 1st May

On the 5th of April, the AUU and SRC jointly released their first policy paper in three years, '2-Minute Students: A Snapshot of Student Poverty at the University of Adelaide'. The report is ‘urging the federal government to include urgent and long-awaited reforms to student income support [in the budget]’.

The report specifically calls for:

1. Aligning the threshold for [the] Parental Income Test with the value used by [the] Family Tax Benefit
2. Reducing the Age of Independence to qualify for Austudy from 25 to 21
3. Increasing the Personal Income Threshold to $400 per fortnight
4. And finally, expanding benefit eligibility for students enrolled in all masters by coursework programs

So, in a nutshell, the report aims to improve the coverage of student welfare, urging that this is necessary as it needed to make education accessible for those from lower socio-economic backgrounds.

The report firstly outlines the recent Marriage of Convenience student action which took place on the 25th of March. It then includes personal stories of all those who chose to give them at the same action, describing their experiences of student poverty.

Some of the saddest stories detail the personal experiences of rural students, who have no choice but to leave home to go to university, and often find it very difficult to support themselves while studying. A lot of students also decry the high costs of textbooks and other educational aids, which can often cost up to $1000 in some courses and significantly hurt the hip pocket of self-supporting students. Many also describe their frantic attempts to earn $18,000 in 18 months (one of the ways to achieve eligibility).

The paper also contains some statistical information about the number of students accessing student loans at the University of Adelaide. In 2008, 602 students sought out these interest-free loans, which are administered by the union (through Student Care) and paid for by the university.

On April 7th, the AUU, the NTEU (National Tertiary Education Union) and the University of Adelaide released a joint media release stressing the need for better student income. I was impressed to see Vice Chancellor McWha lending his personal weight to it, as student income support remains a controversial issue among the wider student body. A copy of this press release is included in the report, along with a more detailed policy briefing written by the National Union of Students (NUS).

Overall, it’s a very convincing report, combining statistical with anecdotal evidence to push its agenda. From what I understand, it was compiled almost entirely by AUU President Lavinia Emmett-Grey. SRC President Paris Dean had no input into it. I point this only in that it’s not the first time Paris has been kept out of the loop on SRC business. The personal rift between him and Lavinia is something of an open secret, and has in the past damaged the procedural integrity of SRC operations (most visibly in the previous NDA, where he and NUS State President Robert Fletcher were not made aware of the plans for 'A Marriage of Convenience' until after almost everyone else. The fact that it was an unambiguously successful event served to make this much less of a scandal than it would otherwise have been).

In December of 2008, the University of Adelaide announced that the base international student fees for 2009 would increase, in some cases by up to 30%.

Justification for the Fee Change

Prior to 2009, the University of Adelaide had the lowest fees of the G8 (Australia’s equivalent of the ‘ivy league’) universities. As such, the fee increase was touted as bringing Adelaide into line with the other universities with which it competes for international students. Fee increases per year of study will increase for commencing students, from the 3-8% paid by students who enrolled prior to 2009 to 5-9% per year. All undergraduate degrees offered to international students at Adelaide from 09 will range from $19,000 to $23,000 annually. Undergraduate international fees at ANU (the highest ranked university in Australia, all rankings used being the SJHT academic ranking) range from $20,400 to $22,800 annually (with the exception of the Bachelor of Medicine and Surgery, which costs $40,800). The University of Western Australia (ranked just above Adelaide) has most courses costing around $19,000 to $22,000 a year, again with the exception of Dentistry and Medicine. As such, it is clear that the latest fee increases bring Adelaide into line with, or slightly above, the other G8 universities. However, given that Adelaide is ranked the lowest of the G8 universities (on all but the THES-QS ranking), our cheaper cost was one of the points in our favour when we competed with the other members of the G8 (the others being Adelaide’s reputation as a safe city, and the fact that our English entrance scores are the lowest in the G8). The price difference, which took university rankings into account, is now largely gone. AUU President Lavinia Emmett-Grey is puzzled by the price change, saying that ‘the University of Adelaide seems to have a peculiar logic that increasing prices will improve their ranking.’ Enrolments for commencing international students show no discernable fall in demand.

A Showdown Averted

In early December 2008, information regarding a 30% fee increase in international student fees was circulated among international students. Outcry quickly followed. Of particular concern was the understanding that this increase in fees would apply to continuing students as well as commencing students. Needless to say, continuing students would be forced to pay the higher fees or drop out, while commencing students are able to weigh up the costs at different universities prior to starting their degree.
The university responded quickly to the criticism. Within days, Judy Szekeres (General Manager, Student Services) sent an email to international students in which she stated that:

‘...fees quoted in the 2009 prospectus… are charged to students who are commencing their programs in 2009. It IS NOT the fees that are charged to students that commenced in 2008 or earlier… when the University of Adelaide makes offers to potential international students to study with us we outline the tuition fees that are to be charged. We also indicate a maximum annual increase (3% to 8%) that may be applied to tuition fees after the completion of the year in which the student is to commence'.

The misunderstanding cleared up, international students were able to enjoy the festive season with one less worry on their mind.

International Students at the Univesity of Adelaide

International students made up 27% of University of Adelaide students in 2007. 50% of these students are from Chinese origin. The university is aiming to increase its international student ratio to 30% by 2012. Given the rapid rate of increase for the 2005-2007 periods, and the lack of a slackening in enrolments following the fee rise, this aim is likely to be reached. The Australian Universities Quality Agency (AUQA) identified several issues faced by international students at Adelaide, highest among these the ‘different worlds’ inhabited by internationals and locals, employment difficulties, and the inadequacy of help with English. These difficulties have been recognized by student politicians: in last years AUU Board elections several candidates, as well as an entire ticket (‘Passion’), ran on platforms which acknowledged the added difficulties of being an international student at Adelaide.
Needless to say, there is often a temptation to view international students as little more than revenue-boosters for universities. This view is often reinforced by the social barriers, chosen or otherwise, that often exist between international students and the locals (also, read this). Financial difficulties are prominent among concerns expressed by international students. Often their fees are paid for by parents back home, but their day to day living expenses must be covered by their taking part-time work. SRC President Paris Dean often discusses this issue with internationals. ‘International students have told me that because of visa restrictions on employment many turn to jobs paying less than a third of the minimum wage to supplement their income, just to pay rent and other bills,’ he says.
International students are allowed to work up to 20 hours a week. Prior to June 2008, they had to lodge an application to the government to allow them to work, paying a $60 charge. This is no longer the case: midway through 2008, the visa restrictions requiring international students to work were changed, with internationals applying after this date being automatically granted the right to work up to 20 hours during semester time with their visa grant. Nonetheless, the limit on work hours often leads to difficulties in acquiring adequate accommodation and other essentials. As such, it is of little surprise that the internationals were adamant to ensure that increase must not apply to continuing students, with the Overseas Students Association (OSA), in conjunction with the Students Representative Council (SRC) and the Chinese Students Association, quickly stepping in to try and lobby against the perceived University policy.. Thankfully there was no need, with continuing student fees remaining as outlined on their university offer letters

This post is not local to Adelaide University, but covers a development that is likely to greatly affect it in the coming months.

After three years of voluntary student unionism (VSU), introduced under Howard, the current Labor government has taken steps to implement a system under which non-academic services may still be offered at universities. The Youth Minster Kate Ellis conducted a survey earlier in the year on the effects of VSU on campuses around Australia, from which the conclusion was that ‘VSU has had a negative impact on student services, amenities and representation’. In response to this, the current proposal is to charge students, starting from July next year, a $250 services fee. This fee may be deferred through HECS.

The Young Liberals have launched a campaign to combat the proposed changes, perceiving them to be the return of compulsory student unionism in disguise. It is worth noting at this point that the money collected from the fee will pass to university administrations, and not to elected student unions. Universities will have to comply by a series of benchmarks set by government as to how the money is spent. This has caused some concerns from the National Union of Students, although its President has commented that the money is badly needed.

The Adelaide Review published an article in 2004 assessing the impact of VSU on university campuses in SA. Paul Norton (at Larvatus Prodeo) cries ‘No taxation without representation,’ citing in his experiance how this leads to inferior student services. He also claims, in a rebuttal to those who disaprove of the left-wing ideology that fuels student unions, that prior to VSU, 'more dollars of student service fees have been misspent in half-baked capitalist ventures than in half-baked communist adventures'. This is in stark contrast to Irfan Yusuf, who while supporting VSU 'in principle', thinks it forced the diversion of funds that should have been spent on education into other areas. Thus, he supports a fee, provided it doesn't go towards student unions, as he fears that would 'signal a return to the days when student money was spent sending lefties to communes while Labor students get subsidised political training'. Jerome Buck makes a similar point. Andrew Norton would like to see less regulation placed on universities, as he believes the position of each will be different. This article pretty much echoes the views voiced by a lot of the left student politicians at Adelaide. Vex News puts a inflammatory headline to a ridiculous analysis which offers nothing to the reader, unless they want their prejudices confirmed (I post the link merely for entertainment value)

More reactions to be posted as I find them, and as more information becomes available…

Despite only ten of the eighteen board members showing up to the final meeting (even after the September meeting was cancelled because of a lack of quorum), it was one of the most active meetings of the year, and still ran under time!

An impressive nine of the fifteen new board members showed up to take a look at what they were in for, and had a respectable amount of input into the proceedings.

Two affiliates – the Overseas Students’ Association (OSA) and the Postgrad Students Association (PGSA) were put on notice by the Board. Notice is reviewed at the next Board meeting and, if the Board sees no changes have been made to the state of affairs, it can result in the affiliate losing a share of its funding.

The OSA was brought up (again) for its dodgy reporting practices, on the basis that most of the reports to the Board this year are apparently identical. Not only does this mess the Board around, it also means that the University will have proof that the OSA has been negligent about their Key Performance Indicators (KPIs - the list of things they need to do that year to be assured of their funding) this year. As a result, there would be a strong argument to cut funding to the OSA next year, which would be extremely disappointing for the executive that is chosen at the AGM this month.

Having the PGSA put on notice was far more unexpected, and was a result of the affiliate completely overlooking at least one of their KPIs. There were also suggestions raised in the meeting that the PGSA hasn't been fulfilling its advocacy role towards students, which may have contributed to their being put on notice.

In a tour of the sports facilities recently, President Lavinia Emmett-Grey and Sports Association President Andreas Munoz-Lamilla discovered an enormous need for better upkeep of the university sporting facilities. One of the buildings in the parklands, for instance, was found to have what was thought to be asbestos in the ceiling, which was punctured. In addition, one the walls of the rugby rooms at Waite was so termite riddled that it provided a serious safety danger.

The Board also made some changes to the structure of some of the advocacy spaces – the Rainbow Room and the Women’s Room. These were brought under the banner of the SRC, and the Women’s Officer and Queer Officer respectively now have responsibility for keeping an eye on those spaces and advising the SRC when there’s any issues with that room. This means that there is now a specific individual that problems can be reported to, rather than the general confusion that existed this year.

The Board also voted to establish a new AUU website at a cost of $15 thousand dollars. Paris Dean raised concerns that the money might mean that the Affiliates would lose out on funding as a result, but ultimately the vote was passed. The plan is to have a new and more user friendly youth-focussed website established ready for term one next year. $15 thousand is reportedly seen as a conservative estimate for the website, and the tender that was decided upon has promised a high level of responsiveness to student needs. The site will be moved off the university server, but it is expected that advertising on the site will well and truly make up for the costs.

The other big motion that was passed during the meeting was to determine a more technological and less expensive way to run referenda, seeing as we need to have one (preferably soon) to instate the (currently unwritten) new constitution. Whoever said the Board doesn’t think ahead?
The two options that were discussed were to have voting over Access Adelaide or to have voting conducted on computers in specific ballot areas, in the manner of normal elections but without all the paper. The proponents of online voting argued that it would make voting far more accessible, making it easier for people to vote and allowing disenfranchised groups such as working students a better opportunity to have their say. Those in favour of electronic voting in person argued that it allowed groups to make their arguments for and against to voters in person and ensure that they were aware of the issues, as well as protecting against people sending out emails to their friends asking them to go straight to the site and vote without looking at the other side of the argument first. Despite the suggestion of a compromise – tents on the lawns from which voters could vote on Access Adelaide – the Board voted to have electronic ballots conducted in the same manner as our usual pen and paper elections.

The final motion for the current Board was one of thanks for the work done in the last twelve months and, really, it was a very depressing demonstration of the board’s capability. The Board bickered over exactly who should be mentioned by name in the motion and how it should be phrased. Eventually everything broke down into argument and it was presumed that some sort of motion had been passed, at which point everyone quickly made their escape.

And with that, I give my enormous congratulations to all the involved members of the 2008 Board who, in my personal opinion, have done relatively well. Good luck to all of you new Board members. I will be pleasantly impressed if you can surpass the caring and passion of those who were genuinely a part of the Board of 2008.