Senate hearings this week will examine the Universities Accord (Student Support and Other Measures) Bill. This bill includes the changes to HELP indexation, the FEE-FREE Uni Ready Places, the Commonwealth Prac payment, and a requirement that 40% of student amenities fee revenue be directed to student-led organisations. My submission to the inquiry is here.

The status quo on student amenities fees

The current law on student amenities fees is a compromise on the long-running compulsory versus voluntary student unionism debate. Prior to 2006, universities could charge an unregulated, upfront fee for student amenities. In an a reversal of normal political positions, left-wing activists supported the unregulated status quo (because it funded their activities), while Liberal students and eventually Liberal governments moved to regulate the market and abolish the fee (also because it funded left-wing activities). In 2005 the Howard government finally legislated away the compulsory fee, with effect from 2006.

In 2011, Julia Gillard legislated to restore a compulsory amenities fee, with effect from 2012. But the fee was price capped ($351 in 2024), funded by the income contingent SA-HELP loan instead of being upfront, and the revenue could only be spent on a list of specified activities. The legislation specifically prohibits the money being spent on on a political party or the election of a person to local, state or Commonwealth office.

Under guidelines derived from the Gillard-era compromise, universities must ‘provide adequate and reasonable support, resources and infrastructure for democratically elected student representatives to carry out their functions’. However there is no specific share of amenities fee revenue that must go to student-led organisations.

In practice the amenities fees is mainly relevant to Commonwealth supported places and the fixed, relatively low amount of money universities receive for them. With no CSP funding for non-academic services the student amenities fee fills this financial gap. Although universities often charge full-fee students a separate amenities fee, reflecting institutional history and politics, this is not necessary. The cost of amenities can just be bundled into the overall fee, as it typically is outside the universities. Only 5 non-university higher education providers use SA-HELP.

Changes under the bill

The Universities Accord (Student Support and Other Measures) Bill specifies that at least 40% of amenities fee revenue must go to student-led organisations: section 19-39(1). An organisation is student led if a) the majority of people on the governing body are currently enrolled or have been enrolled in the previous three years; and b) the majority of persons on the governing body have been democratically elected by students; and c) the organisation satisfies requirements specified in government-set guidelines: section 19-39(3).

The Department of Education’s submission to the inquiry elaborates that these guidelines will include governance requirements that the organisation can (a) make decisions independently of the provider, (b) audited accounts are kept ‘providing transparency about income and expenditure’ and (c) the organisation keeps ‘good corporate governance standards in relation to record keeping, risk management, fraud prevention and financial controls’.

The bill also includes provisions that allow the Secretary of the Department of Education to delay implementation for up to 3 years for public universities and 5 years for other providers. This is because some institutions either don’t have organisations meeting the definition of a student-led organisation or the organisation they have is not capable of taking on additional responsibilities.

How practical is this policy?

As the phase-in policy recognises, not all universities could meet the official start date of 1 January 2025. The Department’s submission says that 15 universities are currently compliant.

I did a quick analysis of university SSAF reports (e.g. this one from RMIT), using a question on payments to third-party organisations. I did not verify whether these third parties would meet the section 19-39 definition of ‘student led’, instead inferring it from names and the occasional superficial google research. If a student-led organisation is not a legally separate body from the university this analysis will not identify it. Some universities report payments to sport-related entities that might be student led but I did not check.

From this analysis I could identify 13 as compliant – UTS, USYD, Deakin, Monash, U of M, Bond, JCU, UQ, UniSA, ANU, UWA, Edith Cowan and Murdoch (the last three have an existing WA requirement to spend 50% of amenities fee revenue on student organisations). Another 16 universities reported payments to organisations I assumed were student-led, but allocated less than 40% of their amenities revenue to them. For the other universities I could not find the relevant information.

In submissions to the inquiry, regional universities were most likely to identify the 40% requirement as impractical. They typically have high numbers of online and/or part-time students, few of whom can take responsibility for running student organisations alongside their other commitments. The RUN submission and separate submissions from CDU and CSU make these points. They are concerned that the 40% requirement would jeopardise the reliable delivery of services that students need.

A range of other university submissions – Newcastle, USYD, Wollongong, RMIT, Adelaide, UTAS, JCU – along with that of Universities Australia also raised practical concerns about the delivery of services under this model.

The policy does not respond adequately to Universities Accord concerns

The Universities Accord final report, which the government uses to justify this policy, did recommend quarantining a specific share of student amenities fee revenue for student-led organisations but did not specify a percentage. 40% is a number the government has chosen without an adequate explanation.

The Accord report also raised similar concerns to this post and university submissions about the implications for service delivery. The government’s policy does not answer these concerns outside of the 3-year transition period – it amplifies them. The Department’s submission to the Senate inquiry says that if student-led organisations don’t meet governance requirements ‘the provider will have an obligation to act’. But this legislation and its foreshadowed guidelines take away a university’s capacity to act. It guarantees student-led organisations 40% of amenities fee revenue and gives them independent decision making power.

Policy coherence

Another issue with the student amenities fee policy is its lack of coherence with the government’s overall regulatory agenda. Before this government took office, rules made universities responsible for non-academic services, especially the guidelines around the amenities fee. This government has added further non-academic requirements in its support for students policy. To these policies the government wants to add a National Student Ombudsman to name and shame universities that don’t meet their legal obligations or otherwise fail to provide a satisfactory service.

A risk averse university would, in this legal environment, consider taking greater central control over service delivery. Instead under this bill they would be required to hand over revenue and operational control of services to a student-led organisation. I’m out of touch with 2020s student politics, but I was a student politician myself a long time ago. I doubt that the service delivery managerial skills of 20-something political hacks have improved much in the intervening decades.

Universities can’t control the outcomes of student elections, yet the amenities fee guidelines insist that ‘where [ ] services are provided by a third party engaged by the HEP, the HEP must ensure that the third party engages trained and qualified staff to provide those services and meet the needs of students enrolled at the HEP.’

The overall government policy position seems to be that universities should be more accountable for providing non-academic student services, but that at the same time they will have less power and less revenue to deliver those non-academic student services – and that’s before we take into account the loss of income due to international student caps.

Conclusion

It’s not clear to me that the Gillard compromise of the early 2010s has failed. It reduced the financial burden on students, focused expenditure on services likely to benefit students, and introduced greater accountability for universities. Universities are required to consult students and provide ‘adequate and reasonable’ funding for student organisations. The government has not provided any convincing case that its proposal would improve service delivery.