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.

“No student should be forced to join a student union or to pay for political activity by student unions.”

Spot on, fellas- but they forgot to mention the fact that students should not have to pay for childcare for other people’s kids, nor copious amounts of alcohol during and after O-Week.

Wre,

I agree with what you said, but I would add- most of the people I know using Uni sporting facilities are non-students. Anti-VSU folks usually forget that a good squash court is an excellent revenue generator, outside the student community.

“I am convinced that my experience was not isolated.”

Your experience is far from isolated, I’m glad my last two years at Uni will be with the Howard Governments gift of VSU.

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

And read some Nozick while you’re at it, centreman. People need to stop forcing others to slave away and steal the benefits for themselves.

Laurie,

“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.”

I disagree. HECS prices can afford to be raised and used to partly fund Universities. We’re often told that a student in medicine faces a $100,000 debt following their graduation, and while mostly exaggerated, its still a fair price. Most doctors will spend that on their spouse’s car. I believe the real problem is in the excessive amount of mature aged students not paying their way, and accumulating massive amounts of debt with no chance of even paying half. We need choice and standards in our uni’s, not an everyone pays-at-the-door, let anyone in, French approach.

That said, if Uni’s are having financial problems- try making some cut backs:

http://heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,17130674%255E25717,00.htm

When I read political philosophy Locke and Mill had not been hijacked by the neoconservatives. The neocon-wre line is a misreading from the Thatcher Reagan era, which Australia is still stuck in while the rest of the world has moved on. More evidence about reasoning skills.
Stewy remembers Robert Nozick. The rest of the world forgot him because his political philosophy (1) bore no resemblance to any real society (2) made the existence of any political society impossible.
We cannot get any consistent or coherent argument out of the neocons. Their appropriation of classical liberalism is a dishonest grab for intellectual legitimacy. The article has it right, Nelson's legislation is illiberal.
As for the cheap abuse of me as a "clown", the irony is that there is nothing in the least funny about the distortions of reasoning and idelogical ranting in these postings. Resort to abuse is a pretty good sign that the opponent has been nailed on the argument.

The article brings up a great point - that it is not the government's job to regulate private organisations. Any issues with a particular organisation should be taken up within the confines of that organisation. The government telling universities how to run their affairs is like the UN telling Australia how much it should tax its citizens. It has no right to do so. If you don't like compulsary unionism, either try to persuade the university to change it, or don't go to that university.

Compulsary VSU is actually a form of regulation, which, despite what some may think, actually runs contrary to a liberal economic ideology.

GT I understand your position. But where you and I differ in our thoughts is that universities should be considered strictly as 'private organisations'. Yes I realise they are private, and I also realise they need some degree of autonomy over their everyday affairs. However on a public policy issue like VSU, a government must regulate. Similarly for example a government must regulate the distribution and availability of places (and HECS), and ensure that suitable people do not go to university but rather gain a trade or similar.

It was becoming far too easy for universities to sit back and reap the massive financial benefits of compulsory 'student service' payments. If you don't believe these financial windfalls exist then a look at the books of most universities in this country will persuade you otherwise! Many chancellors were content to put up with their offices being violently occupied by far left 'student politicians' if it meant maintaing the benefits of compulsory payments.

I maintain that students should not be made to pay for services that simply do not exist. Nor should students find themselves funding the political activities of student activists! If fees can't pay for toilet paper and other similar amenities then universities are at odds with primary and secondary schools that incorporate the basics into their fee structure.

Finally remote centreman, if you are dissappointed with being called a clown then you shouldn't cast aspersions about the reading and writing skills of others. I am a neo-con Howard supporter I guess, and I am throughly used to far left individuals like you screaming, shouting and throwing tomatoes as soon as the realisation dawns that your views are in the minority.

The problem is that student politics and services have been mixed. This suited the interests of both university management and student politicians. Both groups have only themselves to blame for the flawed legislation.

The government rightly sought to protect students' right to freedom of association but failed to draft a bill which allowed institutions to continue to charge legitimate fees for non-academic services.

The major failing has been that of the institutions. They should have accepted that it's wrong to force students to join political groups, and should have developed fee structures which separated non-academic services from student politics and representation. Because institutions failed to do this they've been landed with an imperfect piece of legislation.

Presumably university staff can access services (cafes, gyms etc) without being forced to join staff unions. Why couldn't that same principle be applied to students?

"The article brings up a great point - that it is not the government's job to regulate private organisations."

Fair enough. But a lot of public money is being thrown into Australia's Universities. You have to reconcile the two. If they want to be private, they need to stop leeching off the tax-payer. Until that happens, I dont see why voters should not be able to say, 'we want VSU' in our (essentially government) Uni's.

That said, I believe public education should be available to all who earn it (paid for at least in part by the individual). Public Uni's should be forced to make Unionism voluntary, unless voters decide otherwise.

The real truth of this post is summed up in the words

“Australian universities don't need a nanny state to tell them what to do, they need the freedom to make their own decisions as to how they provide quality student services.”

These two must be undergraduates, they have the argument back to face. Removing compulsory union fees, in fact, steps away form the regulatory embrace of the “nanny state”.

Re “..due to student apathy at Australian universities, they are rarely held to proper account through student elections.”

The authors ask to let Universities compete. Well, let them and let decide if they will charge for a range of student services and let the students decide if they should pay on a user pays basis. This is the opposite of the past practice of students having their arm twisted to force them to pay for unused, unjustifiable and unjust economic support of the political extremists who the authors admit are the only ones interested in promoting the cause and directing the funds of the union

i demands the right to be forced to join a union against my will and have my money used for blatant left wing political purposes.

fight the power.