The MSA runs some generic activities which graduate students are allowed to access, eg Clubs and Societies, free food events, student theatre and lunchtime bands. Some of these events are free and some are subsidised by SSAF funds.

In 2018 the MGA gave the MSA $70,000 to compensate them graduate student access to their free generic events. In 2019 the MGA offered $60,000 and later $70,000 but these offers were both refused.

For over 20 years, the undergraduates have received large amounts of graduate student funding without the undergraduate student associations having to account for those funds. At our last AGM, graduate students complained that they did not use MSA services and directed the MGA to reduce the amount of graduate student funding being transferred to the undergraduates. We generously estimated that graduate students were using approximately $20,000 worth of MSA services. The plan was to gradually work towards a model where there would be no automatic transfer of funds to the undergraduates other than for Clubs and Societies, but the MGA would contribute to other undergraduate services used, valued and decided upon by graduate students.

The MGA negotiated with the undergraduate student associations on the other campuses and came to agreement about the amount of graduate student funding to be transferred: Caulfield (which has the same size graduate student population as Clayton) received $65,000; Peninsula received $5000; and Parkville acknowledged that they didn’t offer any services to graduate students so no funding was transferred. Both Caulfield and Peninsula acknowledged the MGA’s argument that the current funding model was outdated and unsustainable, and agreed to work towards a slow reduction in funds. The MGA is already running joint events with both these student associations, so the process of negotiating in good faith has resulted in strong working relationships.

The MSA refused to meet with the MGA to start negotiations, delaying the process by 10 months. The MSA eventually presented figures of graduate student use of their services but some of these were demonstrably incorrect and others figures varied from meeting to meeting. They did not make much effort to enter into a genuine dialogue, seemingly confident that if they forced the negotiations to be unsuccessful, they would get a better outcome from the DVC (Education). MSA was subsequently encouraged by the university to meet with the MGA, and four meetings were held, after which the MSA complained to the university that negotiations had broken down. However, the MGA was still committed to negotiating a satisfactory outcome for graduate students, as they had successfully managed to do with the undergraduate student associations on all other campuses. At this point the DVC (Education) requested submissions from both associations and made a decision in MSA’s favour.

In addition to all Australian legislation, the MGA is bound by their Constitution, the Incorporated Associations Act and their Funding Agreement with the university. As an independent body, the MGA is not subject to university directives. Our core role is to act in the best interests of graduate students. A break-down in funding negotiations between the MGA and the MSA does not constitute a breach of any of the MGA’s obligations. There is no framework in place to deal with the situation where there is a dispute over the SSAF funding negotiations with the undergraduates. We believe the most logical first step in this instance would have been to set up a discussion between the university and the MGA as to how to sensibly move forward. Instead, there was an ad-hoc arbitration process applied, with very little notice, and no opportunity for consultation or discussion. Had there been an independent, equitable and transparent arbitration process agreed to by the MGA and the university, the MGA would have agreed to abide by the outcome.

At the beginning of the negotiations, the MSA wanted $70,000 – $90,000, then they increased their demand to 10% of the graduate student funds. However four weeks before the matter went to the DVC (Education) for a ruling, the MSA increased their claim again to 15%.

Taking the SSAF funds alone, the MSA is already funded at a much higher rate per head than the MGA is funded. This is because MGA has a lot more part-time graduate students who pay a lower SSAF. In 2017, the MGA received $86 per student and the MSA received $108 per undergraduate, before any transfer of graduate student funds. In addition, when the overall income (SSAF funds and income from activities and investments) is considered, the MSA receives over twice the rate per head than the MGA receives. The MSA also receives more capital development money each year per head than the MGA, and more ad-hoc funding from university departments. So no, not really.

The MSA provided statistics on three services only. The most popular MSA service used by graduate students is Clubs and Societies. MSA reported that there are 707 graduate students involved in MSA clubs. The second most popular service is MSA volunteering with 368 graduate students, and the third is Free Food Wednesdays, with 288 graduate students attending. To put that in perspective, there are around 13,000 graduate students on Clayton campus. MSA figures equate to 5% of Clayton graduate students using MSA Clubs, 2% of Clayton graduates students using volunteering, and 2% of Clayton graduate students attending free food Wednesdays. The MGA’s own survey showed that Clubs and Societies was valued by graduate students, but that their interest in other MSA services dropped off rapidly after that.

We have 269 honours students who are officially considered undergraduates but are registered with our graduate student groups. The majority of these undergraduates are located at hospital sites with their HDR counterparts. They pay a Clayton campus amenities fee. Through the MGA group grants they receive the majority of their social functions and activities. Given they are located off-campus, they are unable to access MSA services. There was no consideration by the university of undergraduate funds going back to the MGA for these services, which have been provided for over 25 years, free of charge.

Good question. It doesn’t! Essentially, the MSA are demanding 15% of graduate SSAF funding for the provision of a few services to 2% – 5% of the graduate student population. By comparison, the MGA ran over 500 MGA activities on Clayton campus in 2018, which were used by thousands of graduate students. Logically, having 5% of the graduate student population using a single MSA service should only translate to the equivalent of between 1 to 2% of the graduate student funds, given those students are also benefiting from many more MGA activities as well as all of the MGA representative services. As the basis for her decision, the DVC (Education) quoted a 7 year old KPMG report recommendation, which is no longer of any relevance to current student association practices, given the rapid changes in the higher education sector over that time. So facts don’t seem to play much of a role in the university’s decision.

The University of Melbourne has merged some of their student association services to the detriment of their graduate student association. The DVC (Education) is keen to replicate that structure at Monash, and the MSA is a keen supporter of this proposal. The MGA has been the most outspoken association against this proposal as we believe that graduate students want tailored services, and we know from personal experience, that where graduate student and undergraduate student associations and services are merged, graduate student interests are always marginalised. Taking away a substantial amount of funding from the MGA will result in poorer services for our cohort, making the MGA less relevant. Substantially increasing the funding to the undergraduates allows the MSA to build up their services. One possible reason for this decision by the university is that it offers a back-door into a student association merger down the line.

Both MSA and MGA were invited to make a submission to the DVC (Education). We were not shown the MSA’s submission, and therefore had no right of reply. We had no interview or discussion with the DVC (Education). We were not told who the DVC (Education) consulted with in making the decision, or on what grounds. Legitimate concerns we raised in our submission were not addressed in the reply. The process lacked transparency and ignored the principles of natural justice. This level of intervention in student association affairs is unprecedented at Monash University, and is completely counter to our Constitution.

Up until this point we’ve tried to argue on the basis of fact. Below are links to some of the key submissions we have made on your behalf. So for those who love the nitty gritty details of a good story or those who simply want to procrastinate so they don’t have to face that assignment or thesis chapter this afternoon, be our guest.