Well argued Alistair

As a student at UNSW and having previously studied at Macquarie I can vouch for the fact that just as at Sydney and every other Uni, the "subsidised" Union food and retail outlets sell at basically the same prices as normal retail. If there is a 10 cent discount here or there, it certainly doesn't add up to the $500 in fees that I pay. Also, while the Union has been telling anyone that will listen that all services will disappear from campus under VSU, the fact is that we already have non-Union outlets on campus, unsurprisingly small business owners consider a University with over 40 000 students a viable market! And in fact these non Union outlets provide the superior service, they are the only thing open on campus after 4 pm or on weekends.

The incredible contradiction that I see in the anti VSU camp is this: it's proponents carry on and on about how the Union is so important to the campus community and it provides such valuable services to students...etc And then in the same breath try to panic monger by saying that under VSU all of these services and the whole "campus culture" will disappear (because no one will join the Union) now here's my problem, student's aren't stupid, they know value for money, if Unions really do provide them withh all these great services then they would have no problem joining voluntarily rather than voting with their feet. In fact by arguing that student Unions are doomed under VSU, anti VSU campaigners are showing the patent falsity of their assertion that Unions provide valuable services to all students...thus destroying their rationale for why Unions should be "saved"...hilarious, isnt it!

In the public sphere the support has certainly come from the left, including campus groups, but among uni students I think it comes from those who actually benefit from the services -- a group I believe to be more right leaning than normal.

As for progressives, many don't want compulsory unionism, but understand that essential services need funding. Ideally they would be provided by the universities themselves, and sufficiently funded by the Government, but that isn't going to happen is it?

Of course the fee is regressive. Unions don't have access to the financial details of individual students, are limited by the rules of the universities and wouldn't be able to justify it as a services fee if it was progressive. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any specific services fees that are weighted to income.

"Value for money" will be relevant only where students expect to be using services and can afford those services - so the free market argument fails for essential services. Not everyone can afford them and how prudent are uni students anyway? Most try to avoid the need to use counselling, career advice, emergency loans, welfare etc. Competition doesn't work in these areas. If the need arises, many will be discouraged from using them because of high prices.

The freedom of association argument doesn't fly with me either - apart from the fee (for services), no one is being forced to participate in the union or restricted from joining another. You can just tell them to piss off; it's done all the time when there's a student election on.

None of this means I'm anti-VSU, quite the opposite, but I think those arguments are bunk. The vast majority of these services fees go to administration, clubs & sports. Many don't want to use these services, many still can't afford them (and might be able to if they didn't have to pay the fee) and many are too busy working so that they can go to uni. The culture argument doesn't justify the burden on those who don't participate.

That I’m on the Right might make it easier for me to contest Alistair’s points.

(1) The first issue is the regressive form of the fee. In almost all student unions, there is a process for those most unable to afford the fee to have it partly or completely waived. I'm not suggesting that such a system works perfectly but ameliorating the regressive effects of the fee is a matter of fine-tuning such processes.

In addition to this, many unions, including my own student association, make emergency loans and other forms of assistance available to students who are in dire need and at risk of discontinuing their studies. I concede that inadequate publicity is given on campuses to such services but that is a problem with the administration and culture of student unions and the competence of their office holders, not an argument for VSU.

(2) The second argument relates to union expenditure. In response, there are two points to make.

(a) When you say that a very small percentage of student union expenditures are "actually related to education", you are defining education in a narrow sense. The vocationalization of higher education - which is a trend that has occurred under Labor as well as Liberal governments - has led to a utilitarian conception of what university education is all about. A conception of university education that sees it as a sausage machine to put you through assignments and exams, then churn you out the other end, with a piece of paper, in order to get you a job.

Of course, people with any understanding of universities and their historical mission, know this is an inaccurate concept of education and one which is more commonly held among the less academically-inclined students. The mission of universities is to advance knowledge (as in the ANU's motto "First to know the nature of things") and to educate its undergraduates in the Western canon of arts and sciences, in order to enable them to make rich contributions to society in their future lives.

Continued ...

If you talk to students from Yale and Princeton, you'll find that most of them will tell you they've learnt more from the inspirational and intellectually stimulating contact with their peer students than from their lectures or tutorials. And that's exactly the way it should be; education is not a professor standing in front of a class, telling you bits of information that you scribble down in a book and regurgitate in an exam.

CSU facilitates an atmosphere where this more holistic concept of education takes place. At my campus, we don't see ourselves as competing - as a university - with the vocational education of a Central Queensland University. How on earth can poor old ANU, inside the world top-20 academically, compete with Oxbridge or the Ivies for top students when its campus culture has been eviscerated by Dr Nelson?

If you're finding my notion of holistic education a bit slippery, I suggest you examine its venerable lineage in conservative philosophy. Get Rationalism in Politics and Other Essays, by Michael Oakeshott, the twentieth century's leading conservative philosopher and read the essays on education.

(b) You raised the specific example of food prices. I completely agree. But that's not an argument for VSU. It's an argument for better competitive tender processes to supply student food outlets. When I worked at the National University of Singapore, we had unbelievably good food, provided by scores of private, individual store holders who competed. I think most of our unions here need to change the model for campus food.

(3) You make an argument about the responsibility of student unions and poor management. Again, I agree but that's not an argument for VSU. It's an argument for better management of student unions. At the University of Tasmania, all Union board members, however young they may be, must take the course to become members of the Australian Institute of Company Directors before they may serve. And that is appropriate - student leaders must better understand their legal responsibilities under the Corporations Act.

Clearly there are many issues to be argued, and everyone will have their own measure as to the effectiveness or necessity of student unions, however I don’t think anyone would argue that there have to be better ways of doing business. Here at uni in Canberra we get the opportunity to see a number of different scenarios played out involving Student Unions and Associations. There’s the ultra-political ANU SU, who has as one of their major reasons for why VSU should be opposed as their ‘essential role’ in political activism on behalf of students, who of course all think the same and have the same day-to-day struggles, such as Australia’s Foreign Policy… University of Canberra has a student association that is often unable to find participants or funding for sports and clubs, however focuses on student welfare and finally somewhere on the outskirts of town is the defence academy, which to the best of my knowledge doesn’t actually have any form of student union, but is still a part of UNSW, I think.

Three different models, all quite feasible, depending on what you think the role of a SU/SA is supposed to be. Whatever your view, I think its clear to see that compulsory student funding of NUS rallies about the war in Iraq or of giant drinking party’s for sham clubs is hardly appropriate. The later is a blatant waste of money, and the political and social activism of the Student Unions has to be questioned as they are spending the money of all students, so shouldn’t they be representing the voice of all students? And as all students do not agree on things such as social issues or political ones, then maybe the unions and associations should just stick to student welfare and accommodation and the like. As for food and services, It’s easy to see that free market forces will ensure cheaper food than the students paying inflated prices and the union paying more.

Yes, the political side of student unionism often gives it a bad name. But a lot of what the union provided at my Uni (Melbourne), was not the sort of thing money that students could afford/would be able to justify as individual costs. Things like emergency loans, legal services, counselling. A lot of these things would be lost if Uni's were not able to charge some sort of attendance fee. Afterall, primary and secondary schools charge fees, and this is acceptable and encouraged by governments. Why are they so against universities charging fees?