State of the Sector

NATIONAL TERTIARY EDUCATION UNION 2007

state of the sect or

State of the Sector Š 2007 National Tertiary Education Union.

Written and produced by the Policy & Research Unit, NTEU National Office, PO Box 1323, South Melbourne VIC 3205 Australia Design by Paul Clifton. Cover photograph by Kenneth C Zirkel.

Other photographs by Paul Clifton, Paul Kniest, Ross Gwyther, Terri MacDonald.

This booklet is free to NTEU members. Not for sale. For additional copies of this booklet please email nteunat@nteu.org.au.

PDF download available online: www.nteu.org.au/publications/other/state_of_the_sector

Contents Introduction........................................................................................................... 2 University funding............................................................................................... 3 Research & Development................................................................................... 6 Staffing........................................................................................................................ 9 Students.....................................................................................................................11 Indigenous participation...............................................................................15 International issues..........................................................................................17 The shifting accreditation landscape..................................................19 Changes to university governance.........................................................21 University independence.................................................................................23 University diversity............................................................................................26 NTEU policy priorities......................................................................................29 Recent NTEU Submissions & Briefing Papers.......................................32

Acronyms................................................................................................................. inside back cover

PAG E

Introduction Universities are important civic and educational institutions, irrespective of whether their ownership model is public or private. While there are many differences in their character, operations and governing structures, it is by their commonalities that they are internationally recognised as universities.

In all countries they are seen as higher education institutions defined overwhelmingly as encompassing teaching and research activities, which have responsibilities for the creation of new knowledge and its dissemination to all parts of society. It is for this reason that UNESCO defines education, and higher education in particular, as a public good.

Universities are important because they educate students at undergraduate and postgraduate levels, produce high quality research and scholarship, create skilled graduates for our professions, engage with community, business, governments and other relevant organisations for the dissemination of knowledge, provision of services, and generation of social and economic benefits. They also maintain freedom of inquiry through informed and critical commentary, both within the scholarly world and in public debate.

Increasingly, universities operate beyond the national interest and engage more broadly in the global environment. This has created a different context for the work of universities – with some real successes in building international teaching and research partnerships, and with some classic failures based on a misreading of the ‘profits’ that might arise from some ventures. When internationalisation works, it can enhance the national and regional roles of universities; when it fails it can substantially undermine both institutional and national reputations.

One of the key features which distinguishes universities from other higher education institutions is their role in research education – in particular the education of postgraduate research students at Masters and PhD levels. This is critical in the creation of new knowledge as well as new scholars.

Universities must always foster free inquiry, retain their independence from the government of the day, and play a leading role in current debates. Over the last decade, universities have battled inadequate funding, excessive Federal Government interference, increasing privatisation and undermining of the principles of freedom of inquiry. Institutions have faced Government censorship of library holdings, while individual researchers have had their research proposals altered by the Attorney General under the anti-terrorism legislation. The result has been a growing self-censorship among teaching and research staff.

Universities are expected to be powerhouses of knowledge, innovation and research and as such contribute directly to the economy, culture and society of all Australians. This report aims to illuminate the current state of play in Australian universities as it affects institutions, staff and students. It has been prepared as a contribution to the current debates in the context of the 2007 federal election, and will be sent to all political parties.

Dr Carolyn Allport, NTEU National President

PAG E

University funding The $1.7b increase in funding announced by the Federal Government in the 2007– 2008 Federal Budget can be seen both as partial recognition of the devastating effects of the previous 10 years of substantive funding cuts and the importance of education in the context of a federal election.

This about face in funding policy contradicts all previous statements made by the Minister for Education, who has previously argued that universities could not expect any increase in Government funding until they achieved $450m of unidentified efficiencies.

Over four years the additional $1.7b amounts to an average of $420m per annum, which is equivalent to about 7.5% of total Commonwealth funding of universities, or 3% of total university revenues. This needs to be placed in the context of the significant funding cuts that universities have endured over the life of the Howard Government, which NTEU estimates to be the equivalent of $1b in real terms in 2005, and almost $5b since 1996.

Total University Income The Minister for Education is correct in saying that Australian universities have never enjoyed greater levels of income. The total level of income increased from about $8b in 1996 to almost $14b in 2005 – an increase of about $6b or 75%. However, the question of where this income is being drawn from – and who is carrying the primary debt incurred – must be considered.

The vast bulk of this increase (approximately $5b) is from private sources, primarily from full fee paying students (especially international students) and Government supported student HECS fees. As a proportion of total university income, HECS fees increased from 12% to 17% between 1996 and 2005. Over the same period, international student fees increased from 6% to 15% of total income, making it by far the single most important source of income growth over the period.

While the growth in international student fee income has a variety of educational and financial advantages, there remains the very real danger that universities may become too reliant on what is a potentially insecure source of finance. While the most recent figures for the sector average the proportion of international student fee income at 15% of total income, this percentage is far higher at a number of institutions, accounting for 46% of total income for Central Queensland University (CQU) and between 25% and 27% for the University of Technology, Sydney (UTS), Curtin, Macquarie and RMIT University.

The impact of a heavy reliance on this income source is best articulated in the recent announcement

by CQU that, in response to a decline in the institution’s PAG E

UNIVERSITY FUNDING 100% 90%

28%

29%

30%

31%

80% 70%

4%

4%

4%

4%

5% 2%

3%

60%

29%

30%

32%

33%

33%

6% 3%

9%

11%

5%

4%

50% 40% 30%

67%

68%

66%

65%

64%

61%

59%

57%

55%

20% 10% 0%

Discretionary Funding 2000

2001

2002

Conditional Op Grants 2003

2004

Specific Purpose Grants 2005

Research Funding 2006

2007

2008

Source: Universities Australia Higher Education Funding Tables (avcc.edu.au)

Chart 1: Share of Total Commonwealth Funding by Type of Funding 2000 - 2005 international student enrolments, it plans to reduce employment by 200. It is also a timely reminder that declining levels of public investment and heavier reliance on full fee student income has made some of our public universities very vulnerable to the vagaries of the international student market.

Public Investment in Universities NTEU’s latest analysis of university funding can be briefly summarised as showing that: • Between 1995 and 2004, Australia was the only OECD economy to show a fall in Government expenditure when measured as a share of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), with Australian investment falling by 4% compared to average OECD increases of around 49%.

• While total revenue received by Australian universities increased by almost $6b between 1996 and 2005, over half of this was due to increases in HECS and international student fees.

• If private contributions from students through HECS are excluded and funding is adjusted for inflation, then Commonwealth payments to universities actually fell by approximately 3% over the period 1995 to 2005.

• In addition to excluding HECS from Commonwealth grants and adjusting them for inflation, allowing for the increase in Government supported load, means that universities received on average about $2,600 less (2005 values) in 2005 than they did in 1996 per student.

In summary, the level of funding universities received directly from the Commonwealth was about $1b less in 2005 than it would have been had Commonwealth grants (ex HECS) been fully indexed to account for inflation and adjusted to reflect the increase in the Government supported student load. Decreases in direct Government funding per student have been partially offset by increases in the fees that Government supported students have had to pay through HECS (for more information refer to Students, p.11).

PAG E

UNIVERSITY FUNDING

Composition of funding & . the rise of specific purpose grants Declining levels of public investment in our universities have also been accompanied by a decreasing degree of autonomy over the way universities spend public monies. While it is important that our universities are accountable for the way they use public funds, the shift in public funding from discretionary to specific purpose or conditional funding has been accompanied by increasing intrusion by government in the management of universities.

While it is difficult to pinpoint the exact amount of Commonwealth funding over which universities have a high degree of spending discretion, the data in Chart 1 provides a very good ‘approximation’ of the general trend. Chart 1 shows the composition of Commonwealth funding (excluding HECS) for the period 2000–2008 (including forward estimates and allocations made under the 2007-08 Budget), breaking it down by discretionary funding (base operating grants based on Government supported student load), specific purpose grants and research specific funding.

Chart 1 also identifies that amount of base operating grant income which is conditional on universities meeting certain protocols related to workplace relations and governance. While in 2000 just over two-thirds (67.4%) of total university funding was either discretionary or not tied to any specific protocols, by 2008 this proportion had fallen to 55.4% of total Government funding.

As the data shows, the proportion of total funding that was allocated for specific purpose programmes was 3.8% of total funding in 2000. When taking into account current forward estimates, this figure will rise to almost 11% by 2008. Examples of the types of programs that have been introduced over this period include funds for Indigenous support, disabled students and collaboration and structural adjustment. While the aims of these programs may in themselves be desirable, the fact remains that they are often allocated on a competitive basis and must be used to achieve Government determined outcomes.

Of the additional $1.7b of Federal funding announced in 2007–2008, almost $1b will be derived from the new Higher Education Endowment Fund. While this injection of funding is a welcome incentive to address well overdue investment in physical and research infrastructure, such funds will be allocated by the Minister on a competitive basis. There is little doubt that the Government will use this to achieve a more diverse higher education sector, comprised of more specialised institutions and with a more ‘flexible’ workforce. Whether such a move is in the best interests of future Australian students, staff and institutions, especially those located in non-urban centres, deserves further debate.

A more blatant use of public funding to leverage desired political change has been through the tying of a portion of universities’ Commonwealth Grants Scheme (CGS) funding to governance changes and workplace relations, known as the Higher Education Workplace Relations Requirements (HEWRRs). The HEWRRs included provisions forcing universities to offer staff Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs) and remove caps on contract and casual employment.

PAG E

Research & Development Very few people would doubt the important role that research and development (R&D) play as key drivers for future economic and social prosperity. Universities are central to Australia’s R&D efforts, not only as a vital source of R&D but also as the educators of our future researchers.

Australia’s relatively poor R&D performance has been well documented. Australian investment in this area lags well behind that of comparable OECD countries, with the latest data (2002) showing that Australia’s R&D intensity (gross R&D expenditure as a percentage of GDP) at 1.69%, well below the OECD average of 2.26%.

In

2002–03 Australian universities accounted for 28% of all the R&D expenditure undertaken in Australia, compared to an OECD average of 19%. When accounting for the type of research conducted, data shows Australian universities accounted for 79% of all the pure basic research and 41% of applied research undertaken.

Universities are not only major contributors to the overall R&D effort; they are also almost exclusively responsible for pure basic, or ‘blue sky’, research. It is this type of research that in the past has led to ground breaking discoveries, and is a vital component of a robust and sustainable R&D sector.

Education of Australia’s future researchers through the higher degree research (HDR) student load has risen from about 25,000 FTE in 1995 to over 33,000 FTE in 2005 – an increase of more than 30% over the period.

Policy Initiatives In order to address Australia’s poor R&D performance, the Howard Government has undertaken a number of policy initiatives. In 2001, the Prime Minister released a major research and innovation policy initiative entitled Backing Australia’s Ability – An Innovation Action Plan for the Future (BAA I).

BAA I involved considerable additional public investment in Australia’s R&D, peaking at just over $1b additional investment in 2005-06.

In May 2004, the Government announced Backing Australia’s Ability – Building our Future through Science and Innovation (BAA II) which extended the BAA I commitments through to 2010–11.

While BAA II was being sold as a new policy initiative, it largely continued existing programs.

Where programs appeared to be discontinued, in reality they were re-packaged or renamed as other programs. As a result, an analysis of the data shows that BAA II did little more than maintain investment at just under 2005–06 levels, rather than provide a new injection of R&D growth funding.

PAG E

R E S E A R C H & D E V E LO P M E N T 1200000 Backing Australia's Ability

1000000

800000

Total funding

600000

Competitive Grants (Catego ry 1) 400000

200000

teg Other Research Grants (Ca 0

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

ory 2) 2002

2003

2004

2005

Chart 2: Commonwealth Research Grants to Universities ($’000 Real 2005 Values) Source: Universities Australia, www.universitiesaustralia.edu.au

Policy Focus While universities have been beneficiaries in terms of overall funding, as shown in Chart 2, NTEU has been concerned about the emphasis in both BAA I and BAA II on the commercialisation of publicly funded research projects or cooperation between public institutions, including universities and the private sector.

While the Government views this approach as a win/win situation for both public and private investment, NTEU would caution that efforts to raise private sector R&D activity should not be at the expense of pure basic or ‘blue sky’ research which is essentially undertaken by our universities.

It should be noted that Labor’s research policy recognises that research and development is a key driver of productivity and economic growth, and that increased strategic public investment is critical. Labor acknowledges the key role of universities in the development of quality research, including ‘blue sky’ research, and states that Government support for research is necessary to attract and retain talented researchers and research students. Labor has also stated that it understands the need for a culture of innovation and knowledge transfer, and will encourage business to lift investment in research and development.

Research Staffing Issues University research staff are crucial to the sector’s R&D efforts. However, as Chart 2 shows, the vast bulk of Commonwealth funding that universities receive is in the form of competitive research grants. Public funds should be used to support the highest quality and impact research.

However, an increasing reliance on project specific, short term competitive funding creates a number of issues for dedicated research staff employed at Australian universities. These include PAG E

R E S E A R C H & D E V E LO P M E N T

the proliferation of insecure, short term contracts, limited career development opportunities, problems in relation to research collaborations and difficulties associated with intellectual property ownership when linked to the commercialisation of research funding.

The Research Quality Framework (RQF) In 2004, the Government announced its intention to introduce the Research Quality Framework (RQF), which is essentially a system to assess the quality and impact of research undertaken by Australian universities and publicly funded research agencies.

The proposal followed the introduction of similar assessment exercises overseas, such as the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) in the United Kingdom and the Performance Based Research Funding (PBRF) in New Zealand. Like the RAE and the PBRF, the results of the RQF will be used as the basis for the distribution of a proportion of public research funding.

The stated rationale for the RQF is to ensure that Australian Government funding is being used to support areas of research excellence and research with the greatest public benefit, with the results being used to distribute over $550m annually in discretionary research funding to universities.

While being supportive of the general principle of using public funding to support the highest quality/impact research, NTEU is concerned about a number of aspects of the implementation of the RQF, especially: • Giving universities the right to select which research groups and individual researchers to submit for assessment.

• The highly complicated and costly administrative arrangements associated with its implementation.

NTEU has argued from the beginning of the RQF consultation process that the RQF should assess the research outputs of all eligible staff (research only and teaching and research staff ). Giving universities the right to select who to include raises a number of issues, including whether the final results will be comparing like with like because universities may adopt very different strategies. It will also result in universities attempting to distinguish between the teaching and research roles of their staff. NTEU is aware that a number of universities are planning to introduce ‘teaching only’ academic staff, further degrading the teaching/research nexus that is central to a quality university education.

NTEU notes the findings of the Productivity Commission’s Inquiry into Public Support for Science and Innovation which concluded that, given the high costs of the RQF and uncertain outcomes, there is no guarantee the benefits will outweigh the costs. The Productivity Commission recommended that the Government consider a less costly quality assessment exercise.

Labor has stated that it would not implement the RQF in its current format if elected, but that it is committed to proceeding with some form of research quality assessment exercise. Their policy states that it would be an internationally recognised, metrics-based quality assurance system that would be transparent and equitable, incorporate international peer review, and encourage research collaboration between public and private sectors.

PAG E

Staffing The composition of the higher education workforce has changed considerably over the last decade. As the data in Table 1 shows, the number of full-time equivalent staff in 1995 and 2005 in total employment (including estimated casuals) rose from 80,754 in 1995 to 94,695 in 2005, an increase of 17%.

While the number of staff employed on limited term contracts actually fell over the period, this was due largely to the flow on effects of the NTEU-initiated Higher Education Contract of Employment (HECE) Award 1998, which limited the circumstances under which universities could legitimately employ staff on fixed term contracts. However, as a consequence of the introduction of the HEWRRs in 2005, and WorkChoices in 2006, both current and potential university employees no longer have the protection of HECE. Staff Continuing Limited Term Estimated Casual Total Staff (EFT) Students Total Student Load

1995

2005

Change (No.)

Change %

45,468 26,037 9,249 80,754

55,826 24,638 14,231 94,695

10,358 -1,399 4,982 13,941

23% -5% 54% 17%

465,650

674,092

208,442

45%

Table 1: Effective Full Time Staff and Student Load 1995 and 2005 Source: DEST Selected Higher Education statistics

Although fairly recent, the effects of these changes are now being seen in the employment data. While the number of employees with continuing employment contracts rose by 23% over the period between 1995 and 2005, this was less than half the rate that the numbers of casual employees increased by – from 9,249 in 1995 to 14,231 in 2005 – an increase of 54%.

Furthermore, the proportion of casual employment within the overall employment landscape rose from 11.5% to over 15% in 2005.

Ageing of the University Workforce Compounding these effects is the changing demographics of the university sector. In 2000, there were 23,771 full-time equivalent (FTE) staff (excluding casuals) over the age of 50 – approximately 31% of the total staff number. Of the academic cohort, just over 36% were 50 years or older. In 2003, there were 35,867 academic FTE staff across the sector, (excluding casuals), with 39% of all academic staff over 50 years of age. Most telling, however, is the latest DEST data (2006) which shows that while the number of FTE staff in the over 50 age bracket has increased to almost 35%, the number of academics in the category of 50 years or older has risen to around 48.5% of the overall academic cohort.

Academia is a highly specialised area, where most positions require a combination of relevant industry experience, proven research record and tertiary teaching skills. As such, vacancies cannot be readily filled via the general workforce. However, data shows that there is likely to be a vacuum, as many older staff leave the profession over the next ten years. While this obviously creates problems for universities in terms of loss of experience and expertise, there is also the problem of recruiting the next generation of academic staff. However, given real cuts to Government PAG E

S TA F F I N G

funding and the shift away from discretionary to purpose specific grants for operating purposes and competitive funding for research, universities are finding it increasingly difficult to find the resources to engage and develop the next generation of academic and research staff. NTEU fears that short sighted institutional policies and strategies aimed at minimising staffing costs will result in the loss of substantial intellectual capacity within the Australian university workforce, which may in turn threaten the future viability of a quality higher education sector.

Student–Staff Ratios As the data in Table 1 also demonstrates, the growth in total staff numbers (23%) has been outstripped by the growth in student numbers over the same period (45%). This has led to an increase in the student-staff ratio, resulting in corresponding increased workloads and intensification of that work. Data published by Universities Australia shows that in 1996, there were 16 students for every faculty based teaching and research staff member. The latest figures (2005) show a sharp rise, with the ratio now averaged at 21 students per staff member – an increase of more than 40%.

Casual Employment When the data is interpreted as a whole, it is clear that a significant proportion of the increased teaching loads is being allocated to casual employees rather than permanent or continuing academic staff. While casual employment has a role in tertiary education, NTEU maintains that it should not be seen as a long term solution to the delivery of quality teaching and learning. However, the use of devolved budget models that operate at most institutions now means that for many faculties the use of casual employees is the only way to fulfil ongoing teaching commitments whilst keeping within their allocated budgets.

Future Employment While there will continue to be young, intelligent and gifted individuals who are passionate about their work seeking employment in tertiary education, career pathways (particularly within academia) are convoluted, and many young academics and researchers end up caught in the holding pattern that is casual employment. Of those who do find permanent employment, issues such as workloads, continued departmental cut backs, and new factors such as pressures arising from the introduction of research assessment, act as disincentives to long term careers.

NTEU believes that permanent on-going employment with well developed career structures, and with legislated professional rights including freedom or enquiry, are the minimum requirements to make academia an attractive career option for intellectually gifted young Australians. Unfortunately, the Howard Government’s funding and industrial relations policies are making this an increasingly unlikely option for many aspiring academics.

PAG E 1 0

Students The student experience at Australian universities has altered considerably over the last decade. Students are working longer hours and paying higher course fees. Student HECS debt has more than quadrupled over the life of the Howard Government, rising from $3.4b in 1995 to 1996 to over $13b in 2005–2006.

Students have also experienced a decline in the provision of campus advocacy, student support and welfare services and social networking opportunities. Those services that do remain are now more expensive and/or increasingly difficult to source.

Increased fees and debt coincided with the introduction in 2006 of the Federal Government’s Voluntary Student Unionism (VSU) legislation, which has led to a drastic decline in student support services, widespread loss of jobs and the deterioration of campus life and activities.

The Student Experience In order to understand the impact of the Howard Government’s policies on the student experience we should listen to the student voice. The following quote reported in Universities Australia’s Student Finances 2006 is considered to be typical: I struggle every week with my finances. I get paid the bare minimum wage and I can only work once a week due to my timetable. I am worrying about the huge debt that I am getting into: how am I going to pay this money back? Constantly having to think ahead to make sure I have enough money to afford the next field trip, textbook or put petrol in my car so I can actually make it to classes. I even tried to condense my timetable so that I can save on petrol.

(Female, full time undergraduate).

Government policy changes have resulted in students seeing higher education as an expensive and increasingly necessary investment in attaining a higher level qualification on the assumption that it will result in a better career and higher lifetime earnings. This Government believes that higher education essentially delivers private benefits to those who undertake it and they should be prepared to pay for it. Education is at risk of being reduced to the status of little more than a commodity, to be bought and sold in a higher education market place. A failure to explicitly acknowledge that higher education (like all forms of education) is a ‘public good’ that delivers substantial public benefit will inevitably result in under-investment in higher education to the ultimate detriment of the country.

HECS Increases The bulk of real increases in funding to universities has come from student fees. As NTEU analysis has shown, the level of resources on a per student basis available to universities to educate Government subsidised students (HECS students) fell between 1996 and 2005, despite the fact that Government subsidised student HECS fees increased by more than 70% over that period. As a result of these changes, Australian students now pay amongst the highest tuition fees in the world to attend public universities.

PAG E 11

S T U D E N TS $12,000 $11,128

$10,000

36% 31%

37%

36%

40% 35%

33%

30% $8,799

28% 25%

$8,000

37%

36%

25%

20%

10%

$2,000 Real Government Funding per Student (LHS)

Real Average HECS Payment (LHS) $0

20% 15%

$2,850

$4,000

$4,913

$6,000

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

5%

Student Share of Cost (RHS) 2003

2004

2005

0%

Chart 3: Funding of Government-Supported University Places 1996 to 2005 (2005 $ Values) Source: NTEU, The Funding of Australian Unviersities: 1996–2005

Escalating HECS fees have seen a corresponding increase in the level of debt that students owe the Government. For example, the HECS cost for an average medical degree is presently around $60,000. While this falls a long way short of the $200,000 plus cost of studying medicine as a full fee paying student, it still means that all students are leaving university with considerable debts. Other degrees are charged at considerable higher rates than the cost of delivery and the average earning wage of a graduate. Law, for example, is charged at the highest HECS band, but is relatively low cost to resource and deliver. In addition, a graduate entering the law profession is likely to do so at equal to, or a little less than, the average graduate level income. It should also be noted that this is for tuition only – the costs of textbooks, materials and general living expenses is additional to this debt burden.

Although Labor has indicated that it is prepared to reduce HECS fees for government supported students, this is likely to be targeted at specific high priority areas. This is reflected in their recently released policy announcing HECS reductions for students studying science and mathematics.

Growth of Full Fee Places A gradual but significant change has come in the wake of legislation introduced in 1996 allowing universities to charge domestic undergraduate students on a full fee paying basis. While the number of domestic full fee students remains low (approximately 2.5% of total undergraduate domestic load according to 2005 figures) it is growing, assisted by several measures introduced by the Government specifically aimed at encouraging the take up of full fee places. As part of its Backing Australia’s Future package, in 2003 the Coalition introduced an income deferred repayment scheme for full fee paying students called FEE-HELP. The amount that students can borrow as part of a FEE-HELP loan has since been increased and the cap on the percentage of domestic student load that universities can enrol has been removed PAG E 12

S T U D E N TS

completely in the 2007–2008 Federal Budget. These changes, particularly the removal of the cap on full fee places, may have long-term implications for the sector. For example, it is now possible for universities to potentially enrol an entire discipline as full fee domestic students by transferring Commonwealth supported places within a broader CGS cluster.

NTEU has consistently opposed full fee paying places for domestic students because of the significant financial equity implications of offering degrees costing over $200,000 at some institutions, and the fact that students are able to access these with lower entry scores than those required of government supported students. Labor is committed to phasing out full fee paying places for domestic undergraduate students and to fully compensating universities for any loss of income as a result of this policy.

Student income support As the recent Universities Australia report, Australian University Student Finances 2006, demonstrates, students are under increasing financial pressure. The report states that between 2000 and 2006: • The proportion of students receiving federal financial assistance fell from 43% to 35%.

• More students incurred personal debts and the average size of these debts increased.

• One in eight students regularly goes without food or other necessities because they cannot afford them.

• 71% of full time undergraduate students work full time during the semester, an average of 14.8 hours a week. As a result, 40% of full time students who work reported that employment had an adverse effect on their studies and almost one in four regularly miss classes.

Evidence is emerging that students from rural, regional, low socio-economic backgrounds and/or Indigenous backgrounds are finding it increasingly difficult to access tertiary education.

Recent Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST) figures indicate that the number of university students from isolated areas fell by nearly 1500 between 2001 and 2005, despite an overall increase in undergraduate enrolments of over 8700.

Recent media reporting about the decline in Victorian rural student participation in university illustrates the impact of reduced student income support, together with the drought, in contributing to this undesirable trend. NTEU has long advocated improved student income support, for both undergraduate and postgraduate students. As such, NTEU has worked constructively with student organisations, including the National Union of Students (NUS) and the Council of Australian Postgraduate Associations (CAPA) in campaigning for improvements in student income support. Recent improvements, such as the provision of rent assistance and additional Indigenous scholarships announced at the last Federal Budget are a direct result of extensive lobbying by NTEU and student organisations.

PAG E 13

S T U D E N TS

Attacks on Student Services Coupled with increases in student debt is the introduction of VSU legislation in late 2005, which effectively bans the payment of student amenity fees (also known as student union, or student association fees). While promoted by the Federal Government as a legislative win for poverty stricken students, it has been argued that the relatively small compulsory fee paid by each student pales in comparison to the increased costs students will have to pay for lost services on a fee for service basis. This is likely to severely hinder students from disadvantaged backgrounds who have relied upon what were low cost services for additional support.

The effect of the anti-student organisation legislation has been to either substantially reduce or close down the majority of student welfare, education and community services provided by student organisations across the country. It is conservatively estimated by NTEU that over 2000 qualified staff have lost their jobs as a result of the legislation, with several student organisations closing altogether.

Student organisations at regional universities have been particularly hard hit. Rural and regional student organisations’ activities and services often supported the wider community through access to sporting, commercial and entertainment services.

PAG E 14

Indigenous participation The shameful reality is that Indigenous Australians continue to be seriously underrepresented in our public university system, both as students and staff. There are a wide range of contributing factors to this, including inequality in universities, inappropriate curriculum, a lack of Indigenous staff, and high levels of poverty.

Indigenous Students Despite the fact that there has been growth in the population of Indigenous Australians, especially amongst younger age groups, data in Chart 4 (p.16) shows that the number of Indigenous students participating in higher education has actually declined since 2003. As a consequence, the proportion of Indigenous students as a share of all students has fallen since 1999 and in 2005 only represented 0.83%, about one-third of the population reference value of about 2.5%.

NTEU’s analysis of Indigenous student participation in higher education indicates that the decline in the overall number of students was driven by the sudden drop in the number of commencing Indigenous students starting tertiary education from 2000, when Indigenous student commencements declined by a staggering 15%.

One of the primary drivers for the decline in Indigenous student participation in higher education has been changes in Government income support for Indigenous students through ABSTUDY. New arrangements for ABSTUDY that came into effect in 2000 had the objective of mainstreaming the scheme by bringing it into line with Youth Allowance and AUSTUDY income support arrangements. These other programs apply to non-Indigenous Australians, with different assessment and entitlement criteria to ABSTUDY. As a result of this policy change, many ABSTUDY students effectively received a substantial cut to the level of income support they received. The changes also worked as a disincentive to new Indigenous students, who found that they could not balance community, family, work and study commitments on the revised scheme.

The data is supported by a recent study released by Universities Australia on student finances, which highlighted the difficulties all students face in attending university. The study found that while the situation was severe overall, the impact on Indigenous students was far worse than for non-Indigenous students.

In our representations and submissions to both the Minister for Education and the Treasurer, NTEU has emphasised the necessity of increasing the level of income support for Indigenous Australians.

The Union has led the lobbying campaign in relation to income support for Indigenous students, and while understanding that this in itself will not improve Indigenous participation, it is a necessary, if not sufficient condition, to redress low participation rates.

PAG E 15

I N D I G E N O U S PA RT I C I PAT I O N 850 8871

9000

8895

Number of Indigenous Students (LHS)

8500 Total Number of Indigenous Students

8988

7384

8370

750

633

700 650

Number of Indigenous Employees (RHS)

588

7000 6500

800

700

8000 7500

783

600

552

550

6000

500

5500

450

5000

2001

2002

2003 Year

2004

2005

Number of Indigenous Staff

9500

400

Chart 4: Numbers of Indigenous students enrolled and staff employed at Australian universities 2001–2005 Source: DEST Selected Higher Education Statistics

Indigenous Staff at Australian Universities The number of Indigenous staff employed at Australian universities in 2005 numbered some 783 persons, which only represented 0.87% of all staff employed at Australian universities. Like student participation this falls well short of the accepted population reference value of 2.5%.

While the employment of Indigenous Australians at Australian universities, especially amongst academic staff, remains woefully low, the data in Chart 4 (above) does offer some positive news, with the numbers increasing by 50% over the last five years (in sharp contrast to student numbers). This has been achieved largely by the inclusion of Indigenous employment strategies and employment targets within Enterprise Bargaining Agreements.

Although Indigenous staffing numbers have increased through Indigenous employment strategies, the need to ensure that Indigenous staff have ongoing security in employment is crucial. The use of fixed term employment is one issue that needs to be addressed, with many Indigenous staff being employed on fixed term rather than continuing contracts of employment.

This approach risks universities being seen as offering only short term strategies to address the considerable inequalities in Indigenous education and employment.

Finally, it should be noted that the dominance of insecure employment contracts can result in a lack of role models to provide support and encouragement for Indigenous students. This may be one factor limiting Indigenous student participation.

PAG E 16

International issues Higher education is very much an international industry, and Australia is one of the leading players in the global higher education market, ranked only behind USA, Britain and Germany in international student numbers. It is therefore not surprising that in 2005–2006 education services were Australia’s fourth largest export earner, worth in excess of $10b. At that time, Australian universities enrolled almost 240,000 international students, of whom about 70,000 (27%) were located offshore.

NTEU has always been, and continues to be, supportive of Australian universities’ involvement in international education, primarily because of the contribution Australia has been able to make to capacity building in overseas countries, particularly developing economies, in our region. The educational, social and cultural benefits of having international students studying at our universities are also important, and the opportunities such engagement creates for building stronger international educational and research partnerships for Australian universities and their staff and students are important factors in sustaining an internationally competitive and sustainable higher education sector.

In recent decades, however, there has been a very distinct motivational shift for Australian universities’ involvement in the global education market, moving away from international education as aid to international education as trade. NTEU has warned that an overwhelming enthusiasm for international educational opportunities (especially where they are being driven by commercial motives) needs to be tempered by the potential risks that these ventures into the international market involve.

NTEU’s 2004 research report into Australian universities offshore programs, Excess Baggage, identified three critical risks associated with Australian universities’ offshore programs. These concerns were: 1. Risks to quality of programs delivered.

2. Risks to the international reputation of institutions and the Australian higher education industry more broadly.

3. Risks to Australian based staff.

Excess Baggage also identified that the nature and extent of risk varies according to the type of international activity that universities are engaged in. There were considerable variations PAG E 17

I N T E R N AT I O N A L I S S U E S

between programs, such as recruiting overseas students to study onshore at Australian universities, offering Australian programs offshore with international partners and establishing campuses of Australian universities overseas.

While the very strong growth in international student numbers and increasing revenue from the export of education services have received much publicity over the last decade, until very recently far less attention had been given to the risks and failure of these operations. In July 2007, the front page of The Australian’s Higher Education Supplement reported that ‘Australian universities are withdrawing en masse from offshore teaching operations for lack of profitability and fear of reputational damage.’

In terms of financial risks the article also noted ‘Australian universities are belatedly realising that courses that bring coveted revenue are not necessarily profitable.’ The tendency by institutions to concentrate on potential revenues whilst failing to completely identify and account for full costs is not a surprise to NTEU, being clearly identified in the 2004 report.

However, the financially driven decision by some universities to withdraw from their overseas operations has the capacity to inflict considerable damage to the reputation of Australia’s higher education sector more broadly. The decision by the University of New South Wales (UNSW) to withdraw from its UNSW Asia project in Singapore, after only being open for a few weeks, is the most prominent recent example.

While the monetary costs of withdrawing will no doubt be substantial, the potential cost to Australia’s reputation and the education industry overall will be felt for some time, and there may be negative impacts for other Australian institutions operating (or considering engagement) within the region.

The risks associated with international activities is not limited to offshore operations, as evidenced by ongoing media speculation about the quality of education provided to overseas students studying in Australia.

Critical issues that need to be addressed to minimise staffing risks include clarifying the legal jurisdiction of any employment contracts, recognising that there are additional workload issues associated with off shore work, and the need to develop appropriate staff development opportunities. It is becoming more important that these employment arrangements be more formally regulated.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the complex issue of academic freedom and protection for overseas based staff working for Australian universities must be considered. In the case of UNSW, there appeared to be a negotiated agreement with the Singapore Government for partial academic freedom recognising that the legal frameworks for political expression and defamation were more restrictive than in Australia. Although foreign universities in Singapore have greater autonomy than local universities, the perceived restrictions on academic freedom have deterred some institutions from engaging within the region.

NTEU would argue many of the difficulties universities are facing in relation to their international projects derive from a need to supplement their funding base in the light of cuts to Australian government investment in higher education. While each university must be accountable for its own decisions, it is worth asking the question whether any of the risks of international participation would have been realised had levels of public investment been adequate.

PAG E 18

The shifting accreditation landscape The Coalition’s Backing Australia’s Future package in 2003, the gradual loosening of the joint Commonwealth-State protocols regulating institutional access to the university title, and developments such as the internationalisation of higher education and the spread of on-line forms of delivery have significantly changed the accreditation landscape within which universities operate.

This shift is most obviously expressed in the changes to the legislative architecture covering universities. The previous Higher Education Funding Act 1988 dealt almost exclusively with selfaccrediting public universities. Only five of the institutions listed in this act were private and they received very limited Commonwealth subsidies.

The Higher Education Support Act 2003 changed this picture in two significant ways. Firstly, it removed the distinction between self-accrediting universities and non-university higher education providers by defining the relationship between the Commonwealth and all institutions covered by the Act along the lines of a financial purchaser provider model. This made universities subject to a range of quality assurance, auditing, accounting and other processes and conditions which while suitable for a purchaser provider relationship should not characterise the relationship between the Commonwealth and universities.

Secondly, it enabled the Federal Education Minister to directly approve a new category of institution, Higher Education Providers (HEP). These were allocated limited student places and their students were given access to the FEE-HELP loans scheme.

This has contributed to a significantly more diverse higher education sector than was the case ten years ago. In addition to 37 public universities and two nonuniversity self-accrediting higher education institutions (Australian Maritime College and Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education), the current act includes two private universities, Bond University and Notre Dame University in Western Australia, and just under 60 institutions with HEP status. The latter are mainly smaller colleges and institutes, many with religious, corporate or university affiliations, offering a myriad of specialised courses in computing, tourism, business and religious studies.

This growth in the diversity of providers will intensify from the beginning of 2008, when changes agreed by the PAG E 19

T H E S H I F T I N G ACC R E D I TAT I O N L A N D S C A P E

Commonwealth and States to the National Protocols for Higher Education Approval Processes, the main mechanism regulating access to university title, take effect. While the National Protocols continue to rule out teaching-only universities, by stipulating that a university must engage in research, the cost was a significantly reduced test for university status overall.

From 2008, institutions will be given access to a modified ‘specialist university’ title on the basis of only offering courses, including research, in one field. The new National Protocols also open the door to offshore universities setting up operations in Australia.

While this new accreditation landscape offers opportunities to universities, it also carries the potential of significant risks. They threaten the identity of our universities and in tandem with other policy settings being pursued by the Coalition, risk reducing many universities to the status of cost-effective providers competing for students and limited government subsidies.

This has significant implications for their reputation and competitiveness in the domestic and international higher education market.

In particular, the growth in non-university and specialist institutions will place established universities under great pressure due to their ability to operate on the basis of substantial cost efficiencies, including ‘cherry-picking’ the most profitable programs and discipline areas to offer on a full fee basis. This could undermine the revenue basis of universities and is likely to put pressure on them to concentrate their resources on profitable courses, leading to a narrowing of discipline breadth, research capacity and student choice.

One area in which the Union does have some cause for optimism is the legislative architecture covering universities as opposed to other higher education providers. At the 2007 ALP Conference, the Union successfully advocated for Labor to commit to repeal the Higher Education Support Act 2003, and replace it with two new acts, one relating to universities and another relating to nonuniversity higher education providers.

While the details of any future legislative arrangements will need to be negotiated with a future Labor Government, NTEU believes that a universities act should be open to all universities and like institutions, whether ‘public’, ‘not-for-profit’ or ‘private’. For this purpose a ‘like institution’ will be an autonomous higher education institution established by its own Commonwealth, State or Territory statute, with the capacity to accredit its own courses at degree and postgraduate level.

Such an approach would provide important protection for the reputation and credibility of the term ‘university’. It would enable a future Labor government to incorporate into legislation objects to safeguard the position of universities, such as protection for academic freedom and the recognition that a university is an independent and autonomous institution that has its own objects established by statute and its own distinct history and mission.

PAG E 2 0

Changes to university governance While universities began to modify their governance arrangements in response to the reforms initiated by the Labor Government in the late 1980s, the first systematised changes occurred in 2003 as part of the Coalition Government’s Backing Australia’s Future package.

This saw a portion of CGS funding tied to universities’ adherence to industrial conditions and the National Governance Protocols. The National Governance Protocols included limiting the size of university councils to 22 members and reduced involvement of staff and students on governing bodies.

Despite being implemented in 2004, the current Education Minister Julie Bishop initiated a review of the National Governance Protocols in 2007 aimed at securing further reforms to university governance arrangements. The Minister has made it clear that she is particularly keen to further reduce the size of university governing bodies, and to remove staff and student representatives from councils by placing them in stakeholder roles on consultative bodies.

NTEU believes this review, as with so much of the Federal Government’s approach to governance issues, is based on a number of flawed assumptions, including: • That it is possible to enforce good university governance through legislative means.

• That smaller governing bodies are more effective than larger ones.

• That external appointments to governing bodies, particularly those with commercial experience, add more value to an institution than internal members.

The considered view of many in the sector, including researchers in university governance, is that you cannot legislate for good governance and that attempts to do so will only result in a one-size-fits-all rigid approach that will not be responsive to the existing diversity in the sector. Nor will this approach be effective in building the capacity of university governing bodies to deal with the complexity of the issues facing the sector.

The Federal Government’s continued pre-occupation with the size and composition of university governing councils is also frustrating because it does not appear to be backed up by any research or detailed statements to support it. It certainly does not correspond to the size of university councils in other nations, which vary in size from 26 members at the University of Oxford to 17 at Yale University.

Unlike commercial corporations, universities do not have shareholders to which directors owe a fiduciary PAG E 21

C H A N G E S TO U N I V E R S I T Y G OV E R N A N C E

duty. Rather, the fiduciary duty of university governors is to multiple stakeholder groups, both internal and external, present and future. A small governing body simply cannot include the vast range of expertise and experiences needed to cope with this complexity, thus compromising effectiveness.

The reduction in the number of staff and students mandated in the first iteration of the National Governance Protocols, as well as the elimination of Ministerial appointments by State and Territory Governments, has already accomplished an overall reduction in the size of many governing boards. The corporatisation of governing bodies has also meant that external appointments have been favoured, especially those with financial and commercial experience.

Student and staff members of governing bodies are now routinely excluded from serving on financial and commercial committees due to so called ‘conflicts of interest’. Anecdotal evidence from members and the Union’s own experience support the view that staff who are critical of the functioning of their institution are not encouraged to speak out or, in some instances, have been faced with charges of serious misconduct on the basis that their comments might impugn the university’s market reputation.

These changes have created a hierarchical, rather than collegial system, with clear divisions between senior management and the university community. Such partitioning is not in the best interests of universities, as institutions need to maximise the use of both internal and external expertise, experience and knowledge in order to deal with the complexity of issues they face.

University staff have both the right and professional responsibility to engage with the governance of their institution. Staff participation in governance is critical to the ability of universities to work in the public interest and defend principles of academic freedom, in so much as staff must be able to actively engage in debates concerning the effective operation of their institution.

A related issue which the sector may have to respond to in the next 12 months is the ongoing debate about Commonwealth, State and Territory responsibilities for higher education. This could have significant impacts for university governance arrangements, most of which are currently codified in State and Territory legislative acts of parliament.

The High Court decision on WorkChoices in 2007 has changed the terms of this discussion by confirming the general application of federal powers to all organisations engaged in trade, including universities. Regardless of which political party is in power after the election, it is likely that the issue of rationalising higher education will be further debated and that this will result in increased Commonwealth control over universities.

PAG E 22

University independence One of the most disturbing policy trends over the last few years has been the increasing attacks on university independence.

The substantial loss of academic autonomy within academic departments and faculties has gone hand in hand with declines in university autonomy imposed by Federal Government policy. This situation has serious ramifications, including the erosion of the commitment to intellectual freedom.

The politicisation of the Australian Research Council’s (ARC) peer review process, as evidenced by the changes made in 2006 which effectively gave the Federal Education Minister the power to appoint and dismiss the ARC College of Experts, and Federal Government policies based on narrow definitions of how best to commercialise university research, are both examples of this trend.

Two areas of particular concern for the Union, however, are workplace relations and the Federal Government’s counter-terrorism measures. The potentially chilling impact these latter laws have to stymie debate and force university administrators to monitor staff and students on behalf of police and security forces has yet to be fully realised by the community, but their impact is already being felt within the sector.

Although the period since the mid-1990s has seen a tightening labour market in which the Union’s collective bargaining strategy has been able to drive real increases in salaries, it has also witnessed the steady erosion of the rights of staff as employees and professionals.

Government policies, particularly since 1999, have sought to impose a range of industrial relations changes on universities using Commonwealth funding as the major weapon. This strategy has been made possible in part because of the basis on which grants to universities are indexed to meet higher costs, with the previous Labor Government introducing an index which in most years provides 1–3% less than that which is required to meet rising costs.

The cumulative impact of these cuts has been to precipitate a funding crisis every few years, which the Government has claimed to ameliorate by providing some additional funding, but with conditions attached.

A leaked Federal Cabinet submission in 1999 acknowledged the funding crisis in universities, and soon after the Government announced additional funding of up to $259m linked to a Workplace Reform Program. This required that Collective Agreements allowed for the offering of AWAs, and introduced a number of ‘productivity’ measures, such as staff being given the opportunity to cancel payroll deductions to their union.

PAG E 23

UNIVERSITY INDEPENDENCE

While the additional funding was welcome, the Government itself generally considered the Workplace Reform Program to be a failure, with all conditions of employment essentially intact, and continuing strong support for collective bargaining.

In 2003, the then Federal Education Minister Brendan Nelson announced the HEWRRs. These linked $404m in funding over three years to significant attacks on the workplace rights of staff, including the requirement that universities offer all staff AWAs and deregulate fixed-term and casual employment.

NTEU and most of the higher education sector considered the HEWRRs to be an unnecessary interference in university affairs. Nevertheless, it appeared uncertain what fate the scheme would meet in the Senate, given that the then Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee urged that the Government’s package be passed so that additional funding could flow to the sector.

The legislation was passed, but not before the Government backed down on all but one of the its workplace relations requirements.

The situation changed dramatically when the Coalition gained control of the Senate. The HEWRRs were revived and commenced operating in April 2005, and with them the level of micromanagement of industrial relations became extreme. In many respects, the HEWRRs pre-figured in a more extreme form the WorkChoices legislation which commenced the following year, with Government officials directly overseeing the drafting of particular clauses in Agreements between universities and NTEU on the basis of arbitrary and highly politicised interpretations of what the HEWRRs required.

For example, the HEWRRs speak of ‘genuine choice in agreement-making’ and have required that all staff be offered the ‘choice’ of an AWA. Since it has become apparent that given the choice, 98% of staff have decided to remain on their union Agreement, the Government and its officials are now requiring that universities have policies which provide that AWAs can be a condition of employment.

The difference between the major political parties in the area of higher education workplace relations is particularly stark. Labor has committed to removing the HEWRRs, while it is clear that if the Coalition wins the 2007 election a new wave of HEWRRtype regulation will be enacted.

PAG E 24

UNIVERSITY INDEPENDENCE

Anti-terror laws The Federal Government’s counter-terrorism measures and their potential impact in relation to university independence and academic freedom has been a significant concern for the Union.

The Union was active in the debate around the Anti-Terrorism Act 2005. NTEU had two broad concerns in relation to the Act: • The general impact in terms of increasing the powers of police and security services at the expense of fundamental human rights, including Australia’s international human rights obligations.

• Issues arising out of the legislation which will directly impact on universities, their staff and their students. These include the widening of the definition of a terrorist organisation to include ‘advocating’ a terrorist act, which includes praise, and the potential for academic freedom rights to be caught up in the broader diminution of human rights that accompanies the Act’s anti-sedition provisions.

The Union has also voiced apprehension about a Department of Defence review currently underway into Australia’s safeguards against the export of controlled goods and technologies which could facilitate the development of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), and the potential for these to be extended to cover so-called intangible items such as research, papers, seminars and attendance at conferences.

Government documents related to the export control review have canvassed asking academics to alert the Federal Government to enrolment inquiries from students from countries suspected of having WMDs, and any requests from foreign nationals from certain countries to attend conferences and seminars on sensitive topics. The review floated the proposal that universities should consider putting security obligations into their codes of conduct and allow representatives from security agencies to sit on institutional review committees dealing with research that has security implications. There are also suggestions researchers should be willing to share the findings of their work with Government before publishing to manage the risks associated with certain knowledge.

There is some evidence that Australia’s anti-terrorism laws are starting to impact on academic freedom and university independence. This was most graphically illustrated by the controversy over a Flinders University researcher awarded a significant grant by the ARC for a study on suicide bombers. The researcher was forced to scale back the project after being informed by the Commonwealth Attorney-General that his plans to interview leadership figures in organisations such as Hamas, Sri Lanka’s Tamil Tigers and Hezbollah could contravene those sections of the Anti-Terrorism Act 2005 making it an offence to ‘associate’ with terrorists.

Anecdotal evidence has also emerged that researchers are postponing or abandoning field projects, or are modifying their research proposals or methodologies due to concerns that they may run foul of the anti-terror legislation.

PAG E 25

University Diversity Part of the rationale for a new approach to funding universities through the introduction of the CGS in 2003 was to encourage greater specialisation and diversity amongst Australian universities. Other policy factors driving specialisation include changes to research funding and greater reliance on specific purpose funding to achieve this end. However, the question must be asked – does our sector lack diversity or are there other policy reasons for the change?

The evidence shows that Australia’s universities are already highly diverse , particularly in relation to: • Size of universities.

• Degree programs offered.

• Composition of student load.

• Amount and nature of funding they attract.

Size of Australian Universities The size of Australian universities varies considerably with the smallest in terms of student numbers being the University of the Sunshine Coast (USC) with effective full-time equivalent student enrolments of less than 3,000, compared to Monash University with over 38,000 effective full-time students. Similar disparities arise in terms of total income and total FTE staff numbers.

In 2005, USC had a total income of $50m compared to the University of Sydney with income of over $1b. In terms of staffing, numbers varied from less than 400 at USC to over 6300 at Sydney.

Diversity of Student Load and Course offerings In terms of student load and course offerings, there are considerable differences between institutions. Whilst the Federal Government has stated that it feels there needs to be more specialisation in course offerings, the table below shows that institutions have already moved towards a concentration of particular subjects and courses.

Discipline Group Natural and Physical Sciences Information Technology Engineering and Related Technologies Architecture and Building Agriculture, Environmental and Related Studies Health Education Management and Commerce Society and Culture Creative Arts

ALL INSTITUTIONS Average 11.9% 7.0% 5.8% 2.0% 1.3% 10.1% 8.3% 19.9% 26.4% 7.2%

HIGHEST % 20.6% 25.9% 20.7% 5.7% 4.3% 22.5% 29.4% 33.9% 49.5% 18.5%

Institutions UTAS UB SWIN RMIT USC ACU ACU MAC ANU USC

LOWEST % 5.0% 2.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.1% 8.8% 14.3% 2.8%

Institutions UB UQ USC, MAC numerous SWIN SWIN ANU CDU UB, SCU UWA

Table 2: Composition of Student Load by Broad Discipline Group Australian Universities 2005 Source: DEST Selected Higher Education Statistics

PAG E 26

UNIVERSITY DIVERSITY

For example, over 50% of students at the Australian Catholic University are enrolled in health and education, and a quarter of students at the University of Ballarat (UB) are in information technology courses (considerably higher than the national average of 7% of the total student cohort). The Australian National University (ANU) has almost half of its students located in within society and culture disciplines (way above the national average of 7.2%), and RMIT University has 5.7% of all its students enrolled in courses in architecture and building, more than twice the national average at 2.0%.

Composition of Student Population There are also great variations in the composition of student populations between different universities. The number of students enrolled as external (off campus) students vary from a high of over 70% for the University of Southern Queensland and University of New England to less than 1% for many universities.

The proportion of students from different equity groups also varies considerably with, not surprisingly, Australia’s regional universities having a disproportionately high percentage of Indigenous students and students from rural or isolated backgrounds as well from low socioeconomic status.

Composition of University Income Sources of university income are also diverse between Australia’s higher education institutions, as indicated in Table 3 (overpage). Over 20% of ANU’s funding is through public research grants, almost double the national average of just over 10%, with a further significant proportion (14.3%) derived from investment income. However, for CQU research income only accounts for 1.5% of total income, as almost half their income is derived from international student fees, and in 2005, the University of Western Sydney received no investment income at all.

USC tops the table for reliance of Commonwealth Government funding, which accounted for just over 45% of total income in 2005, much higher than the national average of just over 30%.

Swinburne, on the other hand, was the least reliant on the Commonwealth, accounting for only 20% of total income.

Finally, it is worth noting contributions made to universities by their respective State governments. Charles Darwin University is at the top of this list, with the Northern Territory Government supplying almost 40% of its total income, more than 10 times the national average of 3.6%.

PAG E 27

UNIVERSITY DIVERSITY

Source of Income Commonwealth Govt Grants Public Research Grants Govt Supported Student Contributions State Govt Other Fees and Charges Interntaional Student Fees Investment Income Consultancy & Contracts All Other Income

ALL INSTITUTIONS Average 30.6% 10.7% 16.3% 3.6% 7.7% 15.1% 4.1% 4.5% 7.3%

HIGHEST % 45.4% 20.7% 28.7% 38.8% 19.3% 45.7% 14.3% 7.6% 14.3%

Institutions USC ANU UWS CDU UB CQU ANU NEWC UQ

LOWEST % 19.6% 1.5% 5.4% 0.0% 3.5% 1.9% 0.0% 0.4% 0.6%

Institutions SWIN CQU ANU CSU, UWS, UCAN UniSA CDU UWS UNE UB

Table 3: Composition of University Income Australian Universities 2005 Source: DEST Selected Higher Education Statistics

The data in Table 3 (above) clearly demonstrates that Australia’s university system is already highly specialised and diverse. The real question is whether universities are receiving the necessary support and funding to allow them to achieve their particular goals and objectives, such as providing its students and community with high quality learning and teaching, excellence in research, and servicing and engaging with the wider community.

It is not a question of making universities less alike, but rather resourcing them to pursue their own visions and strengths. To this end, Labor’s intention to introduce individual funding compacts with each university may provide the flexibility necessary to allow these strengths to be further developed and exploited.

PAG E 28

NTEU Policy Priorities In the upcoming Federal election campaign, NTEU is looking to all political parties to support the following policies.

New legislative architecture for universities NTEU has been concerned for some time about the impact of legislative changes introduced as part of the Coalition’s Backing Australia’s Future package in late 2003, and there is an urgent need for new legislative architecture to cover universities as opposed to other higher education providers. This legislation should be open to all universities and like institutions, whether ‘public’, ‘not-for-profit’ or ‘private’, and enshrine institutional autonomy, academic freedom and the nexus between teaching and research.

Staffing of Australian Universities The rapid ageing of the academic workforce is a fundamental challenge to the ability of universities to maintain their intellectual infrastructure.

Sufficient funding should be made available to allow universities to undertake a comprehensive analysis of future workforce needs and provide them with the capacity to employ and develop the next generation of Australian university academics and researchers. As part of this, measures must be introduced to create an environment where pursuing a research dedicated career is a more attractive proposition than is currently the case. These should include: • Improving universities’ ability to offer aspiring researchers employment security and a genuine dedicated research career path.

• An increase in the number of research scholarships and the funding attached to them.

• Extending funding support for PhD students to 4.5 years.

University Funding NTEU calls on future governments to commit to the provision of a level of public investment to universities that covers the full costs of educating students, undertaking research and actively engaging with their communities. To assist with this process, an independent body such as the Productivity Commission should undertake a comprehensive analysis of these costs.

PAG E 29

NTEU POLICY PRIORITIES

Based on these findings NTEU believes that university operating grants should be increased to reflect real costs. Future funding must increase with the introduction of realistic indexation arrangements to maintain the real value of these grants over time.

NTEU also seeks a guarantee that any future funding will not be conditional on universities meeting governance and workplace relations reform conditions.

Research Too much emphasis has been placed on the commercialisation of publicly funded research. This was recognised by the Productivity Commission’s Inquiry into Public Support for Science and Innovation, when it stated that: The pursuit of commercialisation for financial gain by universities, while important in its own right, should not be to the detriment of maximising the broader returns from the productive use of university research.

Future policy needs to strike an appropriate balance between the funding of pure basic or ‘blue sky’ research and research which has the potential to result in commercial products and/or services. To this end, it is essential that the public benefit test for Cooperative Research Centres be restored.

In relation to public competitive research grants, policies need to be introduced that: • Minimise the extent of leveraging from university sources of income to ensure success in receiving funds.

• Cover all of the costs of undertaking research, including any pay increments and pay rises for staff employed to undertake the research.

The funding of ARC and National Health and Medical Research Council grants should be based solely on the merit of applications and should not be subject to political interference by the Minister. While NTEU supports the principles underlying the introduction of a research assessment exercise, we believe that the RQF is overly costly and will impinge on the industrial and professional rights of staff employed at our universities. We recommend that implementation of the RQF should be delayed and the instrument be redesigned to ensure it is cost effective, capable of meetings its objectives and has due respect for the rights of staff who will be directly affected by it.

NTEU supports the establishment of a dedicated third stream funding mechanism that seeks to reward universities for activities that, either directly or indirectly, result in the generation, application or exploration of knowledge or other capabilities to business and the broader community.

PAG E 3 0

NTEU POLICY PRIORITIES

Students Over the last decade the contribution that Australian government-supported students have made to the cost of their university education has almost doubled from 20% to nearly 40%.

Indeed, Australian government supported students now pay amongst the highest fees in the world to attend a public university.

To ensure equity of access to higher education, especially for students from disadvantaged backgrounds, NTEU recommends: • A freeze on increases to HECS contributions for five years.

• Abolition of full fee places for undergraduate Australian students.

NTEU is seeking a commitment that student services be fully funded by the Commonwealth and that students are effectively represented in the governance and management of these services.

Current income support payments are too low and base payments should be at least equal to or greater than the Henderson Poverty line. Other priority changes that need to be made to student income support include: • The parental income test needs to be flexible so that it takes into consideration difficulties such as those faced by many regional and rural families who may exceed the threshold in terms of assets, but do not have the immediate resources to support their families to attend university.

• The lowering of the current age of independence from 25 to 21 years.

• All AUSTUDY recipients should be eligible for rent assistance and existing anomalies between the payment systems should be removed.

• Postgraduate students, including those undertaking qualifications necessary for professional registration, should be eligible for AUSTUDY. • The number of Educational Costs Scholarships and the funding attached to these should be increased.

Indigenous participation in higher education NTEU strongly believes that the participation of Indigenous Australian staff and students is nothing short of shameful and seeks a commitment from future governments for the adoption of policies aimed at redressing this situation.

NTEU believes that improved income support for students and the use of Indigenous employment strategies and targets might be appropriate, if only small steps, in righting these wrongs.

Governance Government policies that make funding conditional on universities adopting what are essentially corporate governance models belies the fact that the majority of Australia’s universities are public institutions delivering public services.

Given the nature of universities as communities of scholars and students, NTEU believes that is highly appropriate for university governing bodies to include staff and student members.

PAG E 31

Recent NTEU Submissions & Briefing Papers Readers interested in more detailed information are referred to the following selected papers and submissions, available online at www.nteu.org.au/policy/submissions.

Funding & Related Issues

Submission to the Productivity Commission, Inquiry into Public Support for Science and Innovation, August 2006

NTEU, Higher Education Report 2004-05 University Funding Brief, September 2005

Submission to the Productivity Commission’s, Response to Science and Innovation Draft Report, October 2006

Submission to PhillipsKPA, Funding the Third Stream Activities of Australian Universities, January 2006

Submission to the Australian Labor Party, Research & Innovation Paper, April 2007

NTEU, Pay More, Get Less 2006 Update, January 2006 Submission in response to Learning and Teaching Performance Fund Discussion Paper, February 2006 Submission to the Department of Education, Science and Training’s, Review of the Impact of the Higher Education Support Act 2003, February 2007 NTEU, Students Pay More, Unis Get Less 2007, February 2007 NTEU Research paper, Funding of Australian Universities 19962005, April 2007

Governance NTEU, National Protocols Review, March 2006 Submission to the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth (MCEETYA), Revised National Protocols for Higher Education Approval Processes, April 2006 Submission to the Draft National Guidelines for Higher Education Approval Processes, March 2007

NTEU, Budget Summary Briefing Paper, May 2007

Submission to the Joint Committee for Higher Education, Review of the National Governance Protocols.

NTEU, Domestic Full Fee Paying Students Briefing Paper, June 2007

Staffing Issues Submission to the Senate Employment, Workplace Relations and Education References Committee, Inquiry into the provisions of the Higher Education Legislation (Workplace Relations Requirements) Bill 2005, October 2005

Research Dr Carolyn Allport, Research Quality Framework, Preferred Model Update, October 2005

NTEU Australia, (November 2006) Complaint addressed to UNESCO and the ILO on the contravention of UNESCO and ILO standards by the Australian Commonwealth Government.

NTEU, Changes to the Australian Research Council, February 2006 Submission to Senate Employment, Workplace Relations and Education Legislation Committee, Inquiry into the provisions of the Australian Research Council Amendment Bill 2006, April 2006

Indigenous Issues

Submission to the Joint Working Group on Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research, May 2006 Submission to the RQF Development Advisory Group, RQF Final Advice, July 2006

Submission to 2006/07 Federal Budget on Alternatives for Indigenous Student Income Support, November 2005 Submission to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee, Inquiry into Stolen Wages, August 2006

PAG E 32

Acronyms ALP...........................Australian Labor Party ANU.........................Australian National University ARC..........................Australian Research Council AWA.........................Australian Workplace Agreement BAA I........................Backing Australia’s Ability – An Innovative Action Plan for the Future BAA II.......................Backing Australia’s Ability – Building our Future through Science and Innovation CAPA........................Council of Australian Postgraduate Associations CGS..........................Commonwealth Grants Scheme CQU.........................Central Queensland University DEST........................Department of Education, Science and Training FTE...........................Full-time Equivalent GDP..........................Gross Domestic Product HECE........................Higher Education Contract of Employment Award HECS........................Higher Education Contribution Scheme HEP..........................Higher Education Provider HEWRRs..................Higher Education Workplace Relations Requirements NTEU.......................National Tertiary Education Union NUS..........................National Union of Students OECD.......................Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development PBRF........................Performance Based Research Funding R&D..........................Research and Development RAE...........................Research Assessment Exercise RQF..........................Research Quality Framework UB.............................University of Ballarat UNE..........................University of New England UNESCO.................United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation UNSW......................University of New South Wales USC..........................University of the Sunshine Coast UTS...........................University of Technology, Sydney VSU..........................Voluntary Student Unionism

www.nteu.org.au/publications/other/state_of_the_sector