News and Events

2005 Media Releases

La Trobe University fights for student unionism

La Trobe University’s Vice Chancellor, Professor Michael Osborne, has come out strongly in opposition to the Federal Government’s attempt to restrict voluntary student unionism.

In a strongly worded message today (17 March, 2005) to all La Trobe staff and students, Professor Osborne said: ‘Yesterday the Minister for Education introduced in Parliament a Bill which, if enacted, is likely to spell the death of the University as a community.

‘As has now been revealed, the Government has decided to introduce the most restrictive form of Voluntary Student Unionism. The Bill precludes Universities from collecting fees to support services that contribute to the “University experience” for students and thus puts in extreme jeopardy health and welfare services, legal advocacy, affordable childcare, employment services, sporting facilities, the provision of subsidized food outlets and much else.

‘Organized student representation will no longer be the norm with the potential for individuals to lose their voice in helping to shape and deliver a quality education to meet their needs.  In short, this legislation denies students the right to access support services and engagement in activities that contribute to the successful completion of their studies.

‘This legislation allegedly has been formulated in pursuit of the twin principles of freedom of association and the financial welfare of students. Neither of these claims can withstand serious examination.

‘In respect of “freedom of association” students at La Trobe University already have the option not to join the Union;  their “freedom of association” can be enshrined in any form of compulsory fees set to support the continued availability of a range of services and activities.  In reality this legislation will, if anything, inhibit association by despoiling universities of the very facilities that encourage social interaction.

 ‘As for the supposed amelioration of student circumstances, it is instructive to examine the example given by the Minister himself in his introductory speech to Parliament.  The example of unfairness encompassed a “single mother who is training to be a nurse paying for the canoeing club or the mountaineers”.  Leaving aside the possibility that such a student may have, or develop, an interest in such pursuits (and have a better opportunity of doing so in the campus context) under present circumstances she has access to a subsidized child-care facility by virtue of the payment of the General Service Fee.  Under the new supposedly “friendly” regime she will not, of course, see any contributions going to such sporting organizations, but she will have to pay – or more likely be in no position to pay – a sum considerably in excess of the total GSF levy to access (unsubsidized) child-care facilities.  Perhaps the Minister would like to spell out in detail the advantage that his legislation actually offers to such a student.

 ‘Not content with persisting in the underfunding of universities the Minister is now legislating to ensure that they become wastelands lacking even the basic facilities that are the hallmark of decent universities worldwide.   Australia will in fact be the only country in the developed world where universities do not levy compulsory fees for campus services.   This bill can only lead to impoverishment of universities in Australia and will in time contribute to a situation where Australia experiences an outflow of students to overseas universities which boast better facilities and, of course, a diminished inflow as overseas students see Australian institutions becoming academic slums.

 ‘This is bad enough, but what makes the situation truly dangerous is the consideration that over recent years government policies have reduced Australian universities to a condition of substantial dependence upon the recruitment of international students.

‘This legislation is a recipe not just for the user to pay but for the user to pay more;  despite all the demulcent prattle to the contrary it can only lead to the deterioration, and probably the eventual demise of services and facilities which will not be able to withstand uncertain funding;  and it will effectively destroy the university as a community in defiance of all the evidence for the importance of a vibrant campus life both for the welfare of the students and for the reputation of Australian universities internationally.  These are hardly achievements of which a country with a long tradition of higher education should be proud.

‘In regional Australia the impact will be particularly devastating.  For in many campuses there is insufficient critical mass to attract outside enterprises and the alternative facilities that may (at a price) be available in the city are frequently absent.  Perhaps more pertinently regional campuses are important providers of employment opportunities for their local communities – but not for much longer it seems.

‘At a practical level the University is establishing a Working Party under the Chair of the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Equity and Access), Dr Kerry Ferguson, firstly to co-ordinate opposition to the introduction of this legislation and secondly, and importantly, to explore all possible ways of mitigating the impact of this legislation on the provision of support services and activities on our campuses.’

For further information:

Please contact Public Affairs Office, La Trobe University, Tel: (03) 9479 2316.