I have studied at three universities as either a part-time evening student or as a distance ed. student. In each instance I received no benefit whatsoever from my compulsory contribution to the respective universities’ student unions’ coffers.

CSU is a rort; economic rent to the primary benefit of those actively involved in or running the union and with limited or no payback to those who are more interested in their academic progress. Mandatory membership is a socialist anachronism, irrelevant in a free and democratic society.

Absolutely fantastic to see the general opposition in the comments to compulsory student unionism...
I have just finished a 5 year LLB/BA, and now am undertaking post graduate studies. Never once in all that time did the student union help me with a thing! In fact massive issues like expensive parking, night time security, and university policy on outside work were ignored by the union.
Instead 'our' president was off attending May Day protests, throwing eggs at Howard government cabinet ministers, and blockading detention centres. She was meant to be enrolled in my course but never once did I share a subject with her (she had 490CP to complete)!
Unfortunately in university student elections, the minority interest groups have hijacked student services in the name of politics by intimidating all those who are at uni to learn (not protest).

I go back to 1965 when I enrolled and paid for and recieved my union card It was my prized posession and I kept it for may years after leaving uni till it fell apart. I don't remember using any of the benefits it bestowed. Since then I have paid compulsory medicare for health compulsory rates for services compulsory insurance car and house compulsory tax for the the priveledge of living in a fascist state.None of them come near the pride I had in my union payment and card of recognition.All the arguments about what it pays for and the consequenses of its loss have already been made.
Skeeter

The analogy of student union fees to bus tickets is feeble. In the case of Union fees, no matter how flat broke a student may be who is relying on transfer payments to fund their day to day living they still pay the same amount. However, most other fees and charges levied (even the rates now) turn to some extent on capacity to pay.

Even public transport and bakeries have entrenched concessional fees for low income earners. Centrelink kindly issue cards to identify these people. There would be no duplication of admistritive effort in not levying fees against people on youth dole. To say that it is beyond the capacity of the University who already levy the fees to have a differential or concessional rate is falacious, especially when they already know who is recieving transfer payments.

Student Union fees do not necessarily need to be levied directly to the students themselves. There are alternative administritive arrangements that could for instance see Student Union fees added onto HECS debts. This would be cheaper than chasing 20,000 small debts.

The other fundamental problem is that a student union is not the same as government in its functions or role. Government is distinguished by its legislative and legal capacity. The roles vested to government that allow them to hand out dole cheques does not flow alone from an empowering act of a state government.That is clear enough. In that point lies the distinction.

That unions provide texture to campus life is questionable, but assuming that they do then surely it for the individual student to decide if they wish to join the union and for others to provide the essential services on campus. That is how our welfare state works. It does not put the obligation on collectives of individuals but rather on the state

More students (compared with say 10 years ago) are NOT spending their entire day on campus. Most are now forced into taking part time work to pay for their studies. Has this had an effect on the role of student unions? Most definitely. They must now cater for students who work and study.

The substantive linkages between the kinds of services student unions provide to a changing demography have never been clearly made in higher education policy. Indeed most Vice Chancellors have ignored this aspect of student life on their university campuses. One of the reasons for the VC's arms length approach is that student unions are inherently political bodies.

Will the services once provided by student unions (once CSU is abolished) be taken by private operators? What role will student unionism or representation play in selecting these service providers?

Student unionism will not disappear into the ether, but it will need to take on a much more corporate role in the near future.

The argument for CSU by Lee and Pugh is now redundant.
The arguments for how VSU will interface into a corporate model of service delivery to a work/study student body have yet to emerge.