Obiter dicta by Professor Gavin Brown AO

VSU revisited

21 March 2008

Using uninflated dollars the University’s income increased by 144 per cent over the period 1995-2007 while the government operating grant fell by almost 18 per cent. In fact the government operating grant has fallen from 48 per cent of operating income in 1995 to 16 per cent in 2007.

The first thing to be said is that it is good to reduce our dependence on direct government funding provided that our budget increases to assist with the pursuit of our goals and provided that the achievement of that increase does not corrupt our higher aspirations. In that respect I am happy to congratulate all staff on an outstanding effort of self-help.

Next I must, in fairness, note that we also source competitive funds from government. Being at risk, these should be classified in a different category, but they do come from government. In fact, total government funding moved from 59 per cent of operating income to 37 per cent in the period in question. Another way to put this is that the self-help component of our budget, sourced from government, moved from 11 per cent to 21 per cent.

I give these figures because, for me, the most perplexing legislation in that period was the introduction of Voluntary Student Unionism (VSU) which made it illegal for us to charge even an amenities fee. Apart from its serious practical consequences, this enshrined in law the symbolic statement that only activities within the classroom are a legitimate part of the business of a university.

It is praiseworthy that the present government is engaged in consultations on the impact of VSU on student services and representation. There has been extensive healthy cooperation with our student organisations in preparing for meetings with Minister Kate Ellis and in framing our various submissions to the review.

The process is not easy for this University because the impact has been masked by substantial investment to maintain the student experience and there are many voices in the sector willing to proclaim that this is a consequence of us being rich. The reality is that we have chosen to deflect many millions of dollars from other core purposes so that our student organisations are not irrevocably destroyed - but this is not sustainable in the long term.

We are proposing a reasonable fee for all students (scaled down for part-timers and distance students) but are not seeking direct government funding except in the form of matching funds for capital expenditure on student facilities. Our student organisations value independence as we do, but their structural capacity for self-help is less.

Let us hope that the review will lead to the long term preservation of a vital part of the university experience.