The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > If it looks like a duck ... > Comments

If it looks like a duck ... : Comments

By Lorraine Finlay, published 17/11/2008

The Rudd Government's plan for a compulsory amenities fee is the re-introduction of compulsory student unionism in everything but name.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All
Look, if universities want to get students to go to them rather than another uni down the road, they need to provide the proper environment.

This means providing the social infrastructure too...like sporting facilities, bars, cafes, refecs' and everything else.

The union fee being spent on these facilities was always a tax the governmemnt didn't have to raise, and a subsidy the university didn't have to think about.

Students need representation to counter the dodgy side of university life, like badly written courses, poor teaching and under-done libraries.... but the general national tax take should be providing the facilities...a couple of research people, and advocate, and some minor legal advice.... doesn't work out to $250 a year per student.

Or should students be paying for their lecture theatres too?

Rudd just doesn't want to increase university funding again...so he's going to tax the students instead...on top of the HECS his party invented...thanks for nothing Kevo.
Posted by The Blue Cross, Monday, 17 November 2008 10:34:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes Lorraine, it is probably a duck. But your whinging about the ALP reintroducing it probably means you didn't learn your lesson from the Lib's federal electoral defeat.

This particular duck was, as far as I can tell, much loved by the bulk of people it effected. A few vocal dissenters like yourself aside, the students who handed over the money, the Universities, and the staff all thought the old student unions were mostly a good thing. There were definite downsides - the politicking in the student unions for example, but balance sheet was positive.

So why did the previous liberal government destroy the arrangement? For purely ideological reasons as far as I can tell. The attitude was: bugger what the voters think - we don't like it, so it goes. Well here is a lesson for you: politicians who think they we elected them so they could implement their own personal agenda's don't remain politicians for very long.
Posted by rstuart, Monday, 17 November 2008 11:10:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ms Finlay is absolutely right.

This is simply another stealth tax introduced by the Rudd government in an attempt to circumvent their election promises.

Compulsory unionism has been overwhelmingly rejected by students. Using doublespeak to con them is political cynicism at it's worst.
Posted by Midnight Sun, Monday, 17 November 2008 11:10:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
An amenities fee is very worthwhile. The experience of going to university is only enhanced by the availability of services for the students. We need to make sure that institutions don't simply become functional soulless places that churn out automatons.

Going to university is about far more than getting a piece of paper, it's more than an extension of high-school (or at least it used to be!). If it's just about massed produced graduates, then we can look forward to more graduates lacking in imagination and individual thought.

Providing services and making a university an interesting and dynamic place to be, provides an environment where creativity can be explored and students can learn how to learn, rather than simply be taught. If we want bright and creative students, the provision of amenities is essential, and a fee is quite reasonable
Posted by Phil Matimein, Monday, 17 November 2008 11:46:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This really is a reactionary piece. We all know that Howard couldn't tolerate dissent and university activism had to go. He saw it as part of the so-called culture wars.

Howard, however, threw the baby out with the ideological bathwater. Sure, Australian student unions provided the training ground for political activism - not just on the radical fringe: it should not be forgotten that people like Brendan Nelson, Peter Costello and Tony Abbott cut their teeth on compulsory university unions - one of the few training grounds for the conservative side of politics.

But student unions did lots, lots more. Services as eateries, small retail outlets, student media (e.g., campus newspapers), advocacy, and a variety of social, arts, political, recreational, special interest societies and sporting clubs. Most student unions also operated specialised support services for female students, international and indigenous students and those with a disability. And for all students there was help in finding accommodation, cheap computers and subsidised printing services.

All of these services suffered badly from the Howard cutbacks. His mean-spirited 'vision' of University life was opposed to the traditional one of broadening horizons, socialising, and political activism. He overlooked the collateral damage to the quality of university life.

Those of us who went to uni in the days of compulsory student unions vividly recall the broad range of opportunities to get involved in student theatre, music, debating, worthy causes, etc. Visit campuses these days and you'll see almost nothing other than individualistic students scurrying to classes and back to their work or hovels with no time to take in the broader world outside their narrow study/work head-spaces.
Posted by Spikey, Monday, 17 November 2008 12:04:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SPIKEY says:

"Howard couldn't tolerate dissent and university activism had to go. He saw it as part of the so-called culture wars."

So.. dear spikey..is your post an admission that the 'student union' fees were in fact used for political activism ? :)

I think this is a 'moment of truth' GOTCHA.

Of course.. all you said explains exactly why Howard wanted to get rid of rabid rabble rousing ratbags among the student body having their ratbag rants revenued by other students who had no interest in such rants.

THIS time.. we are at least 'told' by the Government that such corrupt political diversion of funds cannot escape scrutiny and permission.
Posted by Polycarp, Monday, 17 November 2008 12:12:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
dear Polycarp,

Sometimes I despair of you.

"...dear spikey..is your post an admission that the 'student union' fees were in fact used for political activism ? :) I think this is a 'moment of truth' GOTCHA."

Duh? Sharp today, aren't you?

You noticed, what I couldn't hide, when I said: "Sure, Australian student unions provided the training ground for political activism - not just on the radical fringe: it should not be forgotten that people like Brendan Nelson, Peter Costello and Tony Abbott cut their teeth on compulsory university unions - one of the few training grounds for the conservative side of politics."

That was no 'admission'. That was a statement of obvious fact, not something to 'admit' as if I've been caught out. I applaud the use of universities as training grounds for political activism. Any decline in university activism is detrimental to Australian politics in general.

I consciously mentioned the fact that the conservative side used student politics as a strong training ground. It might be cute alliteration, but to characterise all student politics as "rabid rabble rousing ratbags among the student body having their ratbag rants revenued by other students..." is a very short-sighted and cliched view of student activists. I suspect you have never actually been involved in university political life but rely on media caricature and ignorant scuttlebutt.

Have you ever thought how people learn to be politicians? Better still, good politicians? In the churches? I think not. In the trade unions? Certainly for many. In the legal profession? yes, a lot. In the universities? Too right!

Involvement in student politics is an age-old and honorable process that ultimately broadens a student's education. Not something to sneer at and starve out of existence as your mate Howard did (to his side's cost ultimately).
Posted by Spikey, Monday, 17 November 2008 12:48:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ms Findlay,
As young liberals branch profile raising essay - “C”: Uninspired, I’ve read better.

As A political science essay - “D-“: too biased, no clear alternative, inconsistent logic tautalogical, Assumptive .

As an economics essay - “E”: unrealistic, shows no understanding of business fudementals even for a uni student. Unimaginative. Thinly disguised contribution to internecine student politics.

As an essay on clear thinking - “ F” ill-conceived ideological rave, irresponsible politicing, prepared to sacrifice the welfare of others for obscure political point scoring. No alternative, Assumptions, unilateralist, absolutist reasoning. negative
The same argument could have been made in 3 sentences.

Comments/ help
This mark come from someone who has openly said that POLITICAL unionism is a bad idea. Your essay is far too ideologically dogma driven to be a basis for a meaningful discussion.The argument's blind allegence to dogma fail's to consider other perspectives. As it stands it's as much a contributor to the internecine student playyard politics as your Labor influenced opponents. Your argument doesn't seriously address the issue or practical solutions or even average student reality. Rather is seeks to elevate the afore mention juvenile politics to an issue.

The only plausible conclusion is that you want standard profit contractors to come in charge more and deliver less.

Your points about free boozeups and bands is valid but neither are they grounds for financial Darwinism. There are many alternative more appropriate structures find one and campaign for that rather than political naysaying for purposes that have nothing to do with the curriculum (wasn’t that your primary beef? Or was it as I suggest a red fish.)
PS write to your readership. We’re not niave uni 1st years.
Posted by examinator, Monday, 17 November 2008 1:53:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I cast my vote with those opposed to compulsory unionism, if that is what is truly occurring, though I think politics is wonderful and everyone shld have the opportunity to get involved on equal terms.

Not having seen for myself what is being proposed exactly, I'm reticent to comment, however, I personally do not like "one size fits all" policies in this particular context.

At one point I was a mature age, part time student with other commitments. All I ever wanted to do, was get in and get out and that worked for me. Anyone that grabbed my shirt and said I had to do this or that and if not I was not being in the true Spirit of things made me think that they only had their own interests at heart and not mine.

In my younger years at an International Uni, with marvellous orientation programs and with every dept pumping out product monthly (multimedia now) which even now after 15+ yrs, I can still go to the shelf and read a completely intact course (not including my notes though they are also present) and refresh myself after having forgotten the lot, unlike many of Oz's tin pot institutions, where u have to email the lect for a photocopy of chicken scratchings,

(Why did they trash the TAFE production house and stop the collation and distilling of the best of from all the fab material re-invented over and over by their staff? What a wasted resource.)

we had a veritable book full of clubs from the international warm and fuzzy group to smash on with sticks traditional style, to poltical parties, some minis of the majors and others the creation of students to u name it .. and always new clubs popping up, others closing down and others being banned.

1/2
Posted by DreamOn, Monday, 17 November 2008 6:31:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
They were a microcosm of the larger economy we were told, and we were all taught relevant applicable law and had to compete for the interests and support of the student body on rules which were agreed by the majority to be fair and equitable to all.

In terms of transparency, which was a must, u cld walk in and on the wall were copies of general and specific rules, fees (some were free though) budgets, expenditure to date etc etc and always someone happy to help out with whatever.

No one was forced to pay for anything that they preferred not to be involved in, which included voting on general student issues, being cogniscant of the fact that some of the international students from some places had very strong beliefs about not wanting to be involved in anything which even remotely resembled anything of a political nature. (oppressed Hahn Red Chinese were an example of this)
Posted by DreamOn, Monday, 17 November 2008 6:33:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
DreamOn,

My recollections are similar to yours. My understanding is the "Student Union" was a body whose job was to look after students. It certainly was compulsory. Well at least paying the fee was. It isn't large, it's around $250/annum now I think. In return you got a hodgepodge of services - cheap refectory food, accommodation help, a 2nd book store, free legal advice from final year law students, clubs for every imaginable activity - the list went on and on.

Back then I didn't know quite to make of it. I just used the services and ignore the politics. Now I think it is a really cool social engineering trick. The students can use all sorts of help - finding jobs, finding accommodation, cheap books, medical services. For many this is their first time away from home, and they really could use some help so they don't get too distracted from their studies when they make the inevitable mistakes. The Uni administrators just aren't up to providing this sort of stuff. The right people to provide it are the students themselves. They know what they need. The trick is getting them to provide it.

Uni students are your typical group of lazy ungovernable dysfunctional juveniles. Getting them to organise themselves into providing these services seems impossible - yet that is what the "Student Union" accomplished. The trick ended up being force them to pay a small sum of money, and allowing them to democratically elect a council to disperse it, and finally providing a few buildings to work out of. Provided you were willing to put up with the very messy and noisy politics of them choosing their representatives the result was remarkable. They made that measly $100 (in my day) stretch beyond what you would believe is possible. I think that was partially because so many of them worked for free within the union - like the law students.

Well, it was remarkable. Then Howard's lot came along, and unlike all liberal governments before them took exception to the word "Union" in the name, and banned it. Idiots.
Posted by rstuart, Monday, 17 November 2008 8:01:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Student Unions will now face a new dilemma. Will they continue to support the feral Greens or will they support the new sex party. I suppose it depends on who can scoop the lowest.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 18 November 2008 9:17:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If only they had changed their name and got rid of that accursed "Union" tag and all its evil connotations.

Then they could have remained totally apolitical and called themselves something like a Federation (like in National Farmers Federation) or an Association (as in Australian Medical Association)and all would have been well.

Maybe one day somebody will stand up to Local Councils and other adminstrative groups that also extract rates that aren't on a strictly user basis too.
Posted by wobbles, Tuesday, 18 November 2008 12:22:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If the ppremise of teh article is that if it looks like a duck then it is a duck then the objection should have been directed at the word Union - Students unions were not about organizing labour to exact better working conditions.
I have been associated with flinders University since 1968. The campus has to provide all the services students need simply because it is comparatively isolated. Before this crazy law came into effect students could get a decent meal up to about 7pm. After that time the union was open for coffee and snacks. No longer all the amenities shut down at 5 and prices are up by about 30%, no longer are students employed, the various student publications have pulled up stumps.
If people would be happier to call the $250 amenities fee compulsory student unionism then call it that - I dont care what it is called as long as there are the funds for students to provide the services and hopefully engage in some ratbag political activism - all for the good.
Posted by BAYGON, Tuesday, 18 November 2008 1:50:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
a duck needs to be entire
removing the unions is like castration[ie its not an entire duck no more]

as one not knowing the 'advantage' of university . it still appears to me the4 buzz is those who do [by and large] 'earn' a higher inbcome [if not status]

of course this exclusive boys club wants to keep it secret [while getting ever more tax cuts ,as well as fre lunches ,but hey guess what
the services are expected by these spoiled [over educated] elite ,so guess what USER pays

if your not using the 'ser-vice' so what
that is your choice

but as charity cant work with out donations , nothing else can either
so not all of us want or use charity ,that dosnt mean they shouldnt be funded
preferably by user pays

look when your getting all unies get
dont be making noises how bad you got it NOW
education allows you to see the future
so just pay up and get to IMPORTANT issues

next case
Posted by one under god, Tuesday, 18 November 2008 3:05:21 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
wobbles said:

"If only they had changed their name and got rid of that accursed "Union" tag and all its evil connotations."

On that basis, we should abolish marriages which are a union between man and woman. And whatever will become of Rugby Union? And the Union Jack?

BAYGON's is the voice of reason and experience:

"If people would be happier to call the $250 amenities fee compulsory student unionism then call it that - I dont care what it is called as long as there are the funds for students to provide the services and hopefully engage in some ratbag political activism - all for the good."

Amen brother!
Posted by Spikey, Tuesday, 18 November 2008 4:56:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Will they tell us how much of compulsory Student Union fees end up in Labor Party coffers?Let the students organise their own social gatherings and keep the Unions out of it.If the Liberal Party had a compulsory fee arrangement in the guise of enhancing social amenity,all hell would break loose.

Is not HEX and survival enough impost on the young who just want to work towards a future?
Posted by Arjay, Tuesday, 18 November 2008 5:22:56 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is a hard slog for students these days. Not only do they have to spend the first few years in the workforce paying back HECS fees (some quite exhorbitant), but also trying to save for their first home. Rents are higher due to housing shortages which makes saving more difficult. And even if they obtain their first house, both partners are required to work to pay it off and mortgage payments as a proportion of total income is much higher.

If union fees were all the students paid it would not be a concern. It does not matter one jot that the Student Unions were a hotbed of politics. This is part of the uni experience - well it was in the 70s - and a richer environment it was for it. What better than examining ideas, debating ideologies and human nature that made us into the well rounded people that we are today. :)

At my university the union fees paid for subsidised food and other amenities as well as running the bookshop and employment office.
Posted by pelican, Tuesday, 18 November 2008 9:13:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Spikey,
I hope you realise I was only making a sarcastic point about the ex-government's pathological hatred of the very name "union".

I also agree that dissent is a vital part of any healthy democracy and it's better to promote it openly in Universities than letting it smoulder in the back alleys out of sight where it can develop into something more sinister.

It's also sad to see much of the previous campus amentities being replaced by vending machines and multinational fast-food outlets.
Posted by wobbles, Tuesday, 18 November 2008 10:18:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
wobbles said: 'I hope you realise I was only making a sarcastic point about the ex-government's pathological hatred of the very name "union".'

Of course, wobbles, and I take rugby union and the union jack as seriously as I take the marriage union.

How I pine for the good old days when university students stormed the Vice-Chancellor's office and led the anti-Vietnam war marches.

Where are today's equivalents of Barry Humphreys, Germaine Greer and Students for a Democratic Society? Swatting down by the vending machines and multinational fast-food outlets?
Posted by Spikey, Wednesday, 19 November 2008 8:44:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think the article misses the fundamental point: when is it legitimate to impose a coercive broad-based fee not attributable to use?
Why do we accept Federal, State and Local Governments imposing mandatory charges, backed by sanctions, based on largely arbitrary criteria unrelated to expenditure? Why baulk at other entities doing the same? Why can’t the local rec centre compel users to join the adjacent bowls club? What is the basis for imposing 'tax' and who can do it?
Having suffered through compulsory SU and VSU I have seen both. I resented subsidising student activities that I had no interest in. I am a non-drinker so loathed my money being p*ssed away at O-day. I am a conservative Christian so didn't appreciate my money going to 'sexual health' (ie promiscuity) and 'alternative sexuality' (ie GLT) programmes. But the same is true of Governments - I don’t approve of everything they spend money on. The question must not be framed in terms of, 'why make everyone pay for stuff many/most don't want or use' but 'when is it acceptable to do so?' I have long forgotten my political economic theory studies (which I'm sure have canvassed this question in detail) so here are just some preliminary thoughts:
1. There must be some form of compulsive power. Obviously Governments have criminal and civil sanctions they can impose. But here the entity with the coercive power is not actually the entity imposing the fee (let's separate mandatory SU from amenities fees for the moment). Why is it legitimate for one entity with power to force payment to another? Why is it acceptable for a Uni to do it but if a Corporation did it they'd be third-line forcing?
2. How does a 'tax' become legitimate - I'll suggest, when people are accepting of their obligation to pay. That happens when people are satisfied there is good reason for expenditures to be recouped that way and most people do not feel either a) the expenditure is unjustifiable or b) their burden is unjustifiable.
This is the discussion that is needed.
Posted by J S Mill, Thursday, 20 November 2008 2:07:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
J S Mill,

"when is it legitimate to impose a coercive broad-based fee not attributable to use?"

Think of compulsory third party motor insurance. You've never had a crash but you still have to pay your insurance.

Think of compulsory voting. You don't want this government but others do and you'll be fined if you don't vote.

Think of street lighting. You don't go out at night but the costs are included in your rates.

Think of paying taxes which pay for education but you don't have any kids. (Or road making but you don't drive a car; or hospitals but you are in the best of health.)

You say you don't participate in student activities. So I'm intrigued to know how you know that students p---- away your money at O week, that sexual health programs are about promiscuity.
Posted by Spikey, Thursday, 20 November 2008 5:32:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
J S Mill, here is a more direct answer to your question than Spikey's. In general, we impose a "tax" like this if the bulk of society is better off, even if a small minority is slightly worse off. If you look at Spikey's examples they all are examples of this.

In this particular case though you didn't have to be worse off. The Student Union's sponsored Christian clubs to the same degree they sponsored any other, and they also provided cheap food, cheap books, a free accommodation service, cheap dental services and so on. If your compulsory fee irritated you that much you could of got it back by taking advantage of those things. I take it you are fairly well off, and so didn't need to. This means your money went to help the less fortunate, something that should warm the cockles of any Christian heart.

And as for being philosophically opposed to some things - well that is part and parcel of this "what is best for the group" thing. Look at it from my point of view. People such as yourself who oppose sex education and contraceptives are statistically more likely to contract and spread sexual disease, and have higher rates of teenage pregnancy. I guess you are happy to make that sacrifice for your faith, but the rest of us aren't - and we make up the bulk of society. We are more than willing to spend a little money to try and protect the herd from the risky behaviours of minorities like yours.
Posted by rstuart, Thursday, 20 November 2008 6:43:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks Spiky and RStuart - this is the discussion I think this topic really needs... although I disagree with both of you ;-)
Spiky - your examples illustrate the point but shed little light on the doctrinal basis. In my much longer original version (too long to publish) I actually acknowledged and accepted your points - Governments levy charges for things which we do not all use but are all obliged to pay for. Why is it generally accepted that they can do that but the local rec. centre can't?
As for O-day, I attended Uni that day and observed it first hand. For sexual health I have to rely on others...
RStuart - this really goes more to the heart of the issue but still I don't think captures it. Ok, we are all prepared to accept some suffering for the benefit of wider society - but when, where, how and how much do we accept. Although I am far from the strict Utilitarian you seem I accept that sometimes we accept individual disadvantage for wider societal advantage. But again, why do we accept Goverments playing that role but not, say, allow the Salvation Army to impose a broad-based poverty fee?
My concern is not about return on investment - I COULD have accessed other clubs to 'get my money's worth' but didn't. That isn't the point (again, this was mentioned a bit in the longer original version). The point is - to whom do we allow the power of coercive 'taxation', and if we're prepared to extend that power to Universities, what is the philosphical basis of it so that we can tell who can have the power and who can't.
Let me add another point to my first two:
3. Is it tied to some form of direct responsiveness to the society that is being polled, that is, are we more likely to accept it as legimimate if we have a direct say in who gets to administer it? Let me suggest, this certainly adds a level of legitimacy to Government action that others don't have...
Posted by J S Mill, Friday, 21 November 2008 12:05:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
J S Mill I think you are confusing the free rider problem with the right of organizations to levy fees as they see fit. All organizations are entitled to levy fees to people who want to participate in those organizations. Thus a number of Churches have 'tithing' as a condition of membership.
The difference here is that the govt. of the day claims the right to determine what fees universities can or cannot charge. I would personally argue that the govt does not have that right unless it can demonstrate that by charging fees some students are excluded from being able to attend on the basis of financial hardship.
The government for its part argues that as it is funding the universities it has a right to impose conditions on the sort of fees universities charge.
I find this argument peculiar in that governments (state and federal) also fund private schools but impose no restrictions on the fees that they charge.
By the same token it needs to be acknowledged that the original point is valid - this is a return of compulsory unionism and I only wish that the government had the courage to acknowledge it as such - the benefits of compulsory union fees outweigh any of the perceived shortcomings and it would have been nice to see the government unambiguously assert that.
Posted by BAYGON, Friday, 21 November 2008 12:54:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Baygon - some interesting points.
Firstly let me say that AFAIK Universities are creations generally of State Acts but are principally funded by Fed money. In this way they are strange hybrid creatures but the golden rule seems to hold sway - he who holds the gold, makes the rules.
Secondly, allowing a Uni to mandate an amenities fee is different from the SU I suffered under where my enrollment was conditional upon payment of a membership fee to the Guild (or, for Conchies, an equivalent donation to a recognised charity). A Uni may well be free to require payment of their own broad-based fees - however, query the right to do this when they are already principally funded direct from the taxpayer - but formerly they also were permitted to force payment to a third-party entity. Government payments usually come with strings attached - just ask the Premiers about the increase in tied grants as opposed to untied. In this case, the Feds are making the rules. Just as they are trying to do with private schools but requiring they disclose other revenue sources.
To look at a likely scenario - is it still acceptable for a Uni to make membership conditional on payment of monies that are then simply handed over to another entity to provide the services... Taxation by the entity with the coercise power for the benefit of another entity. Would you be satisfied with your State government imposing a community welfare levy on households then handing the funds and service provision entirely over to, say, The Smith Family with precious little oversight and in circumstances where the Smith Family, for all of its benevolent aims, is a highly politicised entity with often non-mainstream agendas?
Posted by J S Mill, Friday, 21 November 2008 5:27:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
J S Mill: "The point is - to whom to due allow the power of coercive taxation."

Coercive taxation is a loaded term - just like "Union". A tax/fee/charge, call it what you will, they are all coercive, as in no one would not pay them if they had a choice. When I evaluate these things I try to put aside such words. They are an appeal to idealism, not a pragmatic look at how well something works.

In your response to BAYGON is in essence that because Uni is funded from taxes it should not be able to charge additional fees. That makes no sense - they charge all sorts of additional fees now (eg car parking fees, tuition fees, hex) you don't object to.

The Uni's see the need to provide a range of services for students, outside of teaching them. Things like child minding centres, accommodation, cheap on campus food, representation when dealing with the bureaucracy. Notice this list is not too different to what our taxes support now in the greater community - federal childminding assistance, the dole, legal aid. The Universities could provide them through their own bureaucracy, but in their own assessment it is more efficient to get the students to provide it themselves. Since you have dealt with that bureaucracy, I imagine you won't find this a surprising conclusion. Possible reasons have already been pointed out - the students know what they need, provide voluntary labour and employ other students.

Yet, you object to paying a fee to a "Student Union". To me it looks like you are objecting to the way the services are charged, as opposed to the actual provision of the services. If so you are effectively saying you want the services provided in a less efficient way for purely idealistic reasons. Its an argument I have no sympathy for. In my utilitarian world, arguing we should not help the less fortunate students at all would be marginally easier to sustain. But I bet that like me, you can't bring yourself to do it.
Posted by rstuart, Sunday, 23 November 2008 10:16:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
RStuart - six years since I was a Uni student...
1. I accept your emotive language point.
2. I didn't say Unis funded from taxes couldn't impose fees - I queried its acceptablity. Eg I consider Education essential, public hospitals don't impose fees on public patients. Police don't require fees to investigate crime. Firemen don't refuse water until you pay.
3. Yes, Unis impose additional fees - but user-pays. Car-parking is an example. Unis don't impose HECS. I don't recall tuition fees.
4. Query Govt funding childminding (cf the tax treatment of private expenses essential to work, eg travel to and from; business suits etc) but this also goes to the key issue - we accept (broadly) the power of Govt to impose tax and fund these things - do we allow other entities the same power and, if so, to whom, why, and how? Why Unis?
5. I have no problem paying a 'Student Union', provided I see the value in doing so. For example, I used the Ref and the Second-hand bookshop, vending machines, gym et al at Uni and was happy to pay for that. I didn't use other 'services' and was not happy to pay for them.
6. You suggest I wanted services provided in a 'less-efficent way'. Did you think I wanted them provided by the Uni rather than the Guild? If so, not true. The question is, should those services be provided at all and, if so, who should pay?
7. I'm not sure I agree that provision of services by the Uni is less efficient than provision by the Guild (or that provision on a user-pays basis is less efficient than by a broad fee). Can you tell me why you think it is less efficient?
Posted by J S Mill, Monday, 24 November 2008 11:54:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
J S Mills: "Unis don't impose HECS."

True, the government does. But that is a bit of a red hearing. HECS is a source of funding for the Uni's. It is irrelevant which particular government department gets the job of collecting it.

J S Mills: "The question is, should those services be provided at all"

So you are prepared to say that. Well done. I take it this means you are against the government funding the education related expenses of the less fortunate - not against the Student Union per se. Unlike the other silly arguments about banning "Student Unionism", that makes sense. It is a defensible if extreme viewpoint. I disagree, but I am not going to debate it here.

J S Mills: "I'm not sure I agree that provision of services by the Uni is less efficient than provision by the Guild (or that provision on a user-pays basis is less efficient than by a broad fee). Can you tell me why you think it is less efficient?"

Apart from the reasons already given repeatedly in this tread - like the students providing free labour? Well, the Universities said it themselves at the time. Of course it would be in their interest to say so, so perhaps you don't believe them. But given your apparent political viewpoint I am surprised you are suggesting a government funded bureaucracy would be more efficient than motivating people to help themselves. This is in essence the social "trick" the Student Union pulled off.
Posted by rstuart, Monday, 24 November 2008 12:39:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JS Mill If you have a look at the way taxpayer services are run you will find that there are so-called core-services and non core services. The core services are fully funded. However, in many instances for the particular service to be of any value to the consumer they also need to supply non-core services. Sometimes these can be funded on a use pays basis eg if you go to a sporting venue for a big event you will find a police presence. The cost of that police presence is absorbed in your ticket price for the police will charge the venue a fee for both crowd and traffic control. In other instances the nature of the services are so broad that you will be charged a flat fee to enable the institution to supply those services to whomsoever may need them. Thus public school fees are used to fund all manner of things for example in some schools they are used to subsidise school excursions.
What happens in universities is, in reality, no different. Your objection seems to stem from the fact that the union fees are student administered. I am afraid that people like me are partly to blame for that. When I started university the union fees were collected by the university and administered by the universities. They employed someone to manage the facilities and that person was accountable not to the students but to the Vice Chancellor. In the late sixties and early seventies there was a nationally co-ordinated campaign for students to manage that money themselves. By about 1974 it became the norm for the students to have control over the operation and management of the unions.
When I came back to do some study about 5 years ago I felt that the Student union was run in much the same way as it had been before the student “takeover” – the bean counters were very much in charge and there was very little, if any, serious student activism but perhaps I judge this student generation too harshly
Posted by BAYGON, Monday, 24 November 2008 1:44:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm really enjoying this thread...
Ok RStuart - HECS is interesting. If the Govt imposed and collected a Uni amenities fee which they handed back to Unis I suspect it would be more palatable for students and less palatable for non-students somehow. I wonder why? ;-)
"Education related expenses of the less-fortunate". I don't know what is covered by this. And were my 'education related expenses' included? I am hardly wealthy now and certainly wasn't when I was a student. I am not opposed to education expenses being paid for by the taxpayer as now (although I accept it I'm not a fan of HECS, not because it is partial user pays but because of the inherent injustice - those who implemented it never paid it and shifted debt onto those unable to vote) I am opposed to paying for that which I do not receive. That's hardly unique I would have thought.
No, I'm not opposed to a Student Union/Guild call it what you will - provided that those who wish to join it (and pay) can, and those who don't, needn't, without suffering penalty. Are any of the above extreme viewpoints?
Efficiency has a particular meaning. I suspect that students would just as happily provide services through a Uni run clinic as a Guild one (I know this from experience) but I'm surprised that free labour is an argument advanced by pro-SU people. I suspect mandatory SU distorts the efficiency of service provision (delinks income from demand) and politicising the decision-making does likewise. However, I'm still not sure about this one either way.
I am entirely in favour of assisting people to help themselves and see it as often (but not always) superior to Govt involvement. However, compulsion is not the way to do it. If the Guild can offer something the people want - they'll pay for it without compulsion.
Tell me, what is my political viewpoint?
Posted by J S Mill, Monday, 24 November 2008 5:40:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Labor = tax and spend

Need I say more?
Posted by Shadow Minister, Tuesday, 25 November 2008 12:53:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
J S Mills: "those who implemented [HECS] never paid it and shifted debt onto those unable to vote"

True, but that is irrelevant as to whether it is good policy. I recall there was a large increase in the number of University places at the time, and HECS helped to fund the increase. I would hesitate to call the trade-off an injustice just because you are disadvantaged by it.

J S Mills: "I am opposed to paying for that which I do not receive."

Yet, you don't like HECS, which removed some of the burden of paying for tertiary education from people who never use it. As Spikey pointed out, you are an Australian - so get used to paying for things you don't use directly. You pay for the minding of downs syndrome kid, so can pay his mothers wages as a school teacher so you can pay for another kid to go to Uni and to learn how build a road you will pay for. The fact that most of us are happy to be part of this wondrous web is what makes us one of the most successful societies on the planet.

It would help considerably if you stopped looking for what you get out of it, and start looking at the bigger picture - at what is good for us as a society. So, you are whinging because you have to pay an additional 0.5% on what it costs to educate you at Uni. You know that 66 out of every 100 engineering students drop out? If providing help for books, accommodation, health, legal and providing social outlets gets just one of those through so he can build a road that fee has paid for itself 200 times over.

J S Mills: "compulsion is not the way to do it."

No? So tell, how do you propose to get the Students to give up their free time to help? Not the ones who, as you say, would do it regardless, but rather those who like to think they are running the show.
Posted by rstuart, Tuesday, 25 November 2008 10:06:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rstuart - excuse me a moment while I envision the utopia you speak of where people care not for what they get but rather whether it is good for 'society'. Hang on, what is society, what is good for it, and who gets to decide what to do with my money to implement this wondrous scheme?
If your engineering student statistics are correct (of course, 87% of all statistics are made up. 82% of people know that) then maybe some of them weren't meant to be engineers. Maybe some of them became nurses or teachers. And if they had all stayed on we would be massively over-supplied with engineers and under-supplied with teachers and nurses (I actually know an engineering student who dropped out and became a nurse)!
If society values engineers so much, and if providing books/accomodation/health/legal and other support helps keep them, and if a student guild would provide those things, and if the engineers would access them (lots of maybes here, no?) then maybe society should provide the Guild's financial support. Why single out one group to pay for a society-wide benefit?
Then you turn from being interested in service provision to involving students who will only participate if its run by students? IMHO that number is likely smaller than those who were put off by the Guild running stuff. If the service is provided then surely you're satisfied, whether its provided by the Uni or the Guild?
Baygon - I actually used core and non-core in my post but had to edit for length. If I go to a Metallica concert I see the value in police presence and pay for it. If I go to Barry Manilow - not so much. I don't care who administers services - so long as I only have to pay for what I use. However, I accept that doesn't work with Government. My whole point is - do we extend the same power to Unis and, if so, who else gets such power?
Sorry Shadow Minister but the Howard Government's fiscal history is not helping your argument.
Posted by J S Mill, Tuesday, 25 November 2008 1:50:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Right now I am not trying to convince you that any particular thing is good for society. What triggered this rant was your words "because of the inherent injustice", and later "provided that those who wish to join it (and pay) can, and those who don't, needn't.". They aren't the words of someone who is saying "well, I already get 80% of my Uni education expenses paid for, but if I pay 80.5% and another 1% get through then that is good". They are the words of someone looks at the proposal and asks themselves: "what is in it for me?".

J S Mills: "what is society, what is good for it, and who gets to decide what to do with my money to implement this wondrous scheme?"

The answers are respectively: "you decide", "you decide" and "you". Right now it looks to me like you haven't thought about the answers, because you are thinking in terms of what is good for "J S Mills", thus you have no need for them. To put it bluntly, I and the rest of Australian don't give a rats what is in it for "J S Mills". If you want to appeal to we, the people who funded your education you will have appeal to the interests we have in common. The major thing we have in common is the society we live in, as for it mostly determines how comfortably we all will live out our lives.

J S Mills: "If your engineering student statistics are correct"

They are the figures the Professors reeled off when I studied engineering at UQ, and the same figures were given to my son a couple of years ago when he did the same thing.

J S Mills: "massively over-supplied"

You aren't from an engineering background, are you? My son's cohort at UQ had 40 at his graduation ceremony. 40, in all branches of engineering. Not that I am complaining, it means he will do fairly well for himself in the next couple of decades. But you should be worried. 40 ain't near enough.
Posted by rstuart, Tuesday, 25 November 2008 2:32:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
RStuart my friend, remember our comments about emotive language.
Thank you for the psycho-analysis - but I thought you were an engineer? My comments about HECS were simply that although I accepted it I thought it unfair that it was imposed on those who had no say by people who got their education for free. Does that make me self-centred and mercenary? I agree in broad terms that it is an acceptable form of partial-user pays but is largely subsidised by society because of the benefits to society of people with higher education. You see - I can think of society.
It sounds like you are claiming to speak for everyone. I am always uncomfortable when someone makes such a claim as it is never true and usually unhelpful. What I think you really mean is, 'if you want to convince ME then you must put it the way I want to hear it'. That's unlikely to happen as I don't know you and our positions seem opposed.
According to the President of the Institute of Engineers, 798 engineers graduate from WA alone annually across all disciplines. From just one state! I couldn't find the national figure but that number, extrapolated out, suggests that the 40 at UQ are hardly Robinson Crusoe.
But none of this really goes to the real point of my question - do we allow Unis to impose global fees for services not globally used and, if so, to whom else do we allow this power?
Posted by J S Mill, Wednesday, 26 November 2008 11:35:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
J S Mill

"But none of this really goes to the real point of my question - do we allow Unis to impose global fees for services not globally used and, if so, to whom else do we allow this power?"

Where has your mind been throughout this protracted thread? You have ben given numerous examples. Some more you ask?

Try golf clubs that charge wickedly high membership fees. Most members don't play golf and many don't have time to hang about the clubrooms. (I was going to use the example of the Melbourne Club but you might think I was being party political.)

Try schools which childless people pay compulsory taxes to support (these days whether the schools are private or public).

Try municipal rates which fund libraries whether you can read or not. Or the defence forces whether the nation's in danger or not. Or SBS and the ABC whether you watch them or not. Or ambulances whether you intend to have an emergency or not. Etc etc etc.

You're flogging a dead horse, my friend. Under our social compact we expect taxes to be paid by everyone (except those wealthy enough to pay top accountants to make sure they don't). And we expect that governments will spend those taxes on a full range of services for the common good whether the services are used by everyone or not. That's the way it works in a democracy.
Posted by Spikey, Wednesday, 26 November 2008 5:00:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
J S Mills: "You see - I can think of society."

Great. So when you think of it from societies point of view instead of your own, does "I am opposed to paying for that which I do not receive" sound as reasonable as when you wrote it?

J S Mills: "It sounds like you are claiming to speak for everyone."

Well, I think "It sounds like you are trying to characterise everyone" would be more accurate. But yes, I am claiming that everyone has concerns they will put ahead of those of "J S Mills". In I don't think "I am opposed to paying for that which I do not receive" will wash with the bulk of taxpayers, ie those who haven't gone to Uni and yet are paying 80% of your Uni expenses.

J S Mills: "According to the President of the Institute of Engineers ..."

Yeah well, my figures were hearsay - as are yours. A better indication can be got by comparing unemployment rates at http://svc071.wic016v.server-web.com/gradsonline/ The lowest are the Medical related degrees, followed by Engineers. That would indicate we aren't exactly flooded with them.

J S Mills: "But none of this really goes to the real point of my question - do we allow Unis to impose global fees for services not globally used and, if so, to whom else do we allow this power?"

I am with Spikey here. You have been answered over and over again. To most of us it is a meaningless question. Who cares who has the power? When it comes to fees for things not globally used, the ATO already collects them now - what is the difference between them and the Uni doing the collecting? Perversely, until Howard changed the rules they were both controlled by people you elected. Now the Uni gets to unilaterally decide what services their students need.

The two relevant questions are: do we get better bang for the buck by diverting some funds from tuition into helping students find their way, and if so what is the most efficient way to provide it.
Posted by rstuart, Wednesday, 26 November 2008 6:31:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Spikey,

So you admit that compulsory student unionism is effectively a tax.

No wonder Labor loves it.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Thursday, 27 November 2008 6:30:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shadow Minister,

"So you admit that compulsory student unionism is effectively a tax. No wonder Labor loves it."

Putting false words into people's mouths in order to disparage them discloses more about you than it does about me - or about the issue.

Please try again. It's no wonder the soubriquet is so fitting: you'll never make it into the real Ministry.
Posted by Spikey, Thursday, 27 November 2008 9:09:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JS Mill Have a close read of the last two lines of Stuart's last post:

The two relevant questions are: do we get better bang for the buck by diverting some funds from tuition into helping students find their way, and if so what is the most efficient way to provide it.

Then have a look at what the real JS Mill had to say about the connection between justice and utility. (Utilitarianism section v) you will find that even he would be totally confused how you could use his name to advance propositions that run counter to his arguments. You may also need to look at his discussion of Society and the Individual. "as soon as any part of a person's conduct affects prejudicially the interests of others society has a jurisdiction over it." Union fees could be voluntarily were it not for the fact that those who do not pay the full amount prejudicially affect the interests of others and that therefore society - in this case the university, has a jurisdiction over it.

So have another read of Mill or if that is unpalatable use a different handle - the poor man has written enough nonsense without being lumbered with yours as well.
Posted by BAYGON, Thursday, 27 November 2008 1:59:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Spikey,

You said:

"do we allow Unis to impose global fees for services not globally used

Try schools which childless people pay compulsory taxes to support

Try municipal rates which fund libraries whether you can read or not.

Under our social compact we expect taxes to be paid by everyone"

Which of these are falsely quoting you? I don't even have to read between the lines.

What would you like to call it? an involuntary contribution? a compulsory donation? an enforced gratuity?

Quack Quack I think. I couldn't say it better.

Spikey is suitable, as you bristle when you find your pants around your ankles
Posted by Shadow Minister, Thursday, 27 November 2008 2:47:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shadow Minister,

It's not compulsory to post on OLO. Nor to read the garbage that other posters inflict upon us. I'm off to Texas...or is that tax us?
Posted by Spikey, Thursday, 27 November 2008 9:43:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy