This is perhaps the first objective article I've seen on the VSU issue. I have very little doubt that the majority of students would have voted with the government in any referendum on the issue solely because very few of them see any tangible evidence of how their 'student services fees' benefit them every year.

The authors speak of maintaing the use of sporting facilities and counselling services. I don't know a single university where gyms and pools were free to use prior to VSU and I don't know a single student who ever went to counselling. In fact from recollection a counsellor was only available one day a week at my university. So where does all the money go? Parking costs an absolute fortune, public transport isn't much cheaper or subsidised by these fees and the 'fake maccas' that spring up in student canteens are more expensive than the real 'golden arches'.

At my uni we had a 'Student Union Car' (a brand new Ford Falcon) that made numerous trips to detention centres, a 'student representative council' that was paid NOT to attend uni, a fully furnished 'queer space' and student elections that were dominated by the radical left so much so that people neither had the inclination nor courage to speak out. I am convinced that my experience was not isolated.

It is a pity for regional students who need accomodation benefits or timid students who need a little reinforcement via counselling that the radical left has ruined their chances.

this would have to be one of the most ridiculous articles ever written.

it's defending the indefensible, in any true democracy individuals should have the freedom of choice and the kind of overt corruption that takes place in unis with student funds used for political purposes should be opposed.

the fact that so many journos and media commentators are in favour of the current setup says alot about their commitment to freedom and democracy.

It should be important for any 'liberal' party to ensure that the majority of power is in the individual not in the business, and only then concentrate on the power of organisations (businesses) over the government. As a correspondence student it should be obvious that these fees benefit me not at all, unless I should attend counciling via email. The constant fees have been a burden to me largely because I know I am paying for others and do not have a chance to even recieve some of the benefits available to on campus students. Given the huge numbers of students taking up correspondence courses it is absolutely necessary to stop these idiotic unions from scamming them. With only 10% taking part in union life, clearly thier actions are going to seem idiotic to the majority.

Political apathy is almost an alternative party these days, and to ignore this upsetting situation by continuing with 19th century ideologies and their historical manifestations is beyond acceptable. It just adds to the apathy. If suffering is what it will take to boost participation in our democracy then lets get on with the suffering. I had to pay for my own couceling, my own gym, my own sporting activities aswell as everything else on top of fees.

Get over your old ideas and get on with some new ones!

Vinny and wre need to attend a quality higher education provider to get some skills in reading and writing. They have missed the point of the article which is to emphasise that the legislation forbids institutions to provide certain services, which is contrary to a liberal political outlook.
Perhaps when they get through reading and writing, in the absence of soft markers, they can take a course in reasoning and argument as there are conspicuous deficiencies there as well.

Remote centreman needs to take a look at the whole thrust of what vinnie and myself have written ie that the legislation hasn't stopped any services from being provided because they weren't provided prior to the legislation in any case. Furthermore it is stupid, stupid, stupid to argue that liberal ideology could ever be contrived to advocate that a minority be allowed to fund its own political agenda through the MANDATORY donations of individual students, who neither benefit from, nor are able to see any 'services'!

You're a clown remote centreman- go back to political science 101 and read Locke and Mill

But they were NOT arguing that anyone should have to pay for political activity. Yes, that side of student unionism was ANNOYING (as a recent ex-Melbourne Uni student, I remember not being able to get into the main library without having to run a gauntlet of people trying to get me to vote for whatever. Grr.), but, as the article points out, the legislation prevents Unis charging ANY services and ammenitites fees. Do you know what those fees pay for? Not just 'counselling & gyms', but also things like toilet paper, rubbish collection, maintainence of buildings. Are these not essential?

The Government's bridging fund is not even close to what was being collected by unis directly, and now they are prevented from charging what needs to be charged, how are they going to pay for toilet paper etc? Student academic fees are already barely covering the cost of lecturers etc.

Presumably, preventing Unis from charging non-academic fees will lead them to having a higher proportion of full-fee domestic & international students (just to have some cash without Govt strings attached), which will result in less and less opportunities for kids without a rich Mummy and Daddy to go to Uni, as their merit places will gradually dry up. It really is badly thought out policy.