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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.