Subscription Options:
Darren Churchill ACT- MEDIA RELEASE: Monday, 19 July 2010: Labor/Greens preference deal shows the bias
- Media Release: 15th July 2010 ACT Democrats announce 2010 No. 1 Senate candidate
- MEDIA RELEASE: 7th July, 2010: Statement on asylum seekers
- Media Release: 30th June 2010: Random Drug testing law is costly and flawed, say Democrats
- Media Release: 30th June 2010: Proposed drug testing law raises human rights and effectiveness concerns, say Democrats
Student Services and Amenities Fee – a University Student’s View
The proposed Student Services and Amenities Fee has been in the news, with the Liberal Party not liking it, the Nationals planning to divert all the money to sport and now The Greens wanting the collected funds to go through student bodies.
As I write this, the Senate is debating the legislation, without agreement.
I should mention that I am a board member of the student association at my university.
There are 4,000 students at my regional campus, so at $250 per student per year, there would be a million dollars available. Where it is spent is up to the university, under guidelines set by the minister of the day. The legislation does say that the guidelines can not direct all funds to student organisations and prohibits the funds being spent on political campaigns or donations, by either the university or the recipient body.
How do students pay the fee? Simply, it goes on the HECS bill, like other university costs, or is paid upfront.
The money is intended to pay for the services previously funded through compulsory student unions: child care facilities, counselling services, sporting facilities, recreation areas, events and so on. Under the Howard Government, these services were cut back or taken over by the universities or by private enterprise.
Student services are still decidedly inferior to what they used to be and what they could be.
I have learned my university – and presumably most others – intends to fund services through current providers, improving some and reintroducing others that were lost.
If the Nationals’ amendment gets up, my little campus would continue to struggle with minimal funding for vital, heavily patronised services, while equipped with lavish sporting facilities. A million dollars buys a lot of footballs.
The changes proposed by The Greens could result in more funds to student bodies than needed, leading to lopsided service provision or in student bodies having to re-establish services dropped by other providers.
On the other hand, if too low a proportion of funding goes to student bodies, it may mean underfunding the key services they provide.
Either way, both the Nationals’ and Greens’ proposals mean inferior services compared with the legislation as it stands.
Tags: amenities, board member, child care facilities, counselling services, donations, footballs, greens, howard government, legislation, liberal party, million dollars, nationals, political campaigns, private enterprise, recreation areas, regional campus, service provision, student bodies, student organisations, student unions
Wow, Eddie!! Just – Wow!
What is it with the two currently-elected minor parties? If this law was diverting funds from baa lambs and moo cows to sport, the National Party would be having kittens! Then the Greens. If it was environmental they’d be all over it with “fiscal conservationism” – but this they just jump into like kindergarten kids and want to splash dollars all over the place.
Vic Libs talk about a National leading them and the Greens want to form a coalition government with whomever (as Bob Brown was floating last week) ??
Give me a break!
Good article.