dear Polycarp,

Sometimes I despair of you.

"...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."

Duh? Sharp today, aren't you?

You noticed, what I couldn't hide, when I said: "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."

That was no 'admission'. That was a statement of obvious fact, not something to 'admit' as if I've been caught out. I applaud the use of universities as training grounds for political activism. Any decline in university activism is detrimental to Australian politics in general.

I consciously mentioned the fact that the conservative side used student politics as a strong training ground. It might be cute alliteration, but to characterise all student politics as "rabid rabble rousing ratbags among the student body having their ratbag rants revenued by other students..." is a very short-sighted and cliched view of student activists. I suspect you have never actually been involved in university political life but rely on media caricature and ignorant scuttlebutt.

Have you ever thought how people learn to be politicians? Better still, good politicians? In the churches? I think not. In the trade unions? Certainly for many. In the legal profession? yes, a lot. In the universities? Too right!

Involvement in student politics is an age-old and honorable process that ultimately broadens a student's education. Not something to sneer at and starve out of existence as your mate Howard did (to his side's cost ultimately).

Ms Findlay,
As young liberals branch profile raising essay - “C”: Uninspired, I’ve read better.

As A political science essay - “D-“: too biased, no clear alternative, inconsistent logic tautalogical, Assumptive .

As an economics essay - “E”: unrealistic, shows no understanding of business fudementals even for a uni student. Unimaginative. Thinly disguised contribution to internecine student politics.

As an essay on clear thinking - “ F” ill-conceived ideological rave, irresponsible politicing, prepared to sacrifice the welfare of others for obscure political point scoring. No alternative, Assumptions, unilateralist, absolutist reasoning. negative
The same argument could have been made in 3 sentences.

Comments/ help
This mark come from someone who has openly said that POLITICAL unionism is a bad idea. Your essay is far too ideologically dogma driven to be a basis for a meaningful discussion.The argument's blind allegence to dogma fail's to consider other perspectives. As it stands it's as much a contributor to the internecine student playyard politics as your Labor influenced opponents. Your argument doesn't seriously address the issue or practical solutions or even average student reality. Rather is seeks to elevate the afore mention juvenile politics to an issue.

The only plausible conclusion is that you want standard profit contractors to come in charge more and deliver less.

Your points about free boozeups and bands is valid but neither are they grounds for financial Darwinism. There are many alternative more appropriate structures find one and campaign for that rather than political naysaying for purposes that have nothing to do with the curriculum (wasn’t that your primary beef? Or was it as I suggest a red fish.)
PS write to your readership. We’re not niave uni 1st years.

I cast my vote with those opposed to compulsory unionism, if that is what is truly occurring, though I think politics is wonderful and everyone shld have the opportunity to get involved on equal terms.

Not having seen for myself what is being proposed exactly, I'm reticent to comment, however, I personally do not like "one size fits all" policies in this particular context.

At one point I was a mature age, part time student with other commitments. All I ever wanted to do, was get in and get out and that worked for me. Anyone that grabbed my shirt and said I had to do this or that and if not I was not being in the true Spirit of things made me think that they only had their own interests at heart and not mine.

In my younger years at an International Uni, with marvellous orientation programs and with every dept pumping out product monthly (multimedia now) which even now after 15+ yrs, I can still go to the shelf and read a completely intact course (not including my notes though they are also present) and refresh myself after having forgotten the lot, unlike many of Oz's tin pot institutions, where u have to email the lect for a photocopy of chicken scratchings,

(Why did they trash the TAFE production house and stop the collation and distilling of the best of from all the fab material re-invented over and over by their staff? What a wasted resource.)

we had a veritable book full of clubs from the international warm and fuzzy group to smash on with sticks traditional style, to poltical parties, some minis of the majors and others the creation of students to u name it .. and always new clubs popping up, others closing down and others being banned.

1/2

They were a microcosm of the larger economy we were told, and we were all taught relevant applicable law and had to compete for the interests and support of the student body on rules which were agreed by the majority to be fair and equitable to all.

In terms of transparency, which was a must, u cld walk in and on the wall were copies of general and specific rules, fees (some were free though) budgets, expenditure to date etc etc and always someone happy to help out with whatever.

No one was forced to pay for anything that they preferred not to be involved in, which included voting on general student issues, being cogniscant of the fact that some of the international students from some places had very strong beliefs about not wanting to be involved in anything which even remotely resembled anything of a political nature. (oppressed Hahn Red Chinese were an example of this)

DreamOn,

My recollections are similar to yours. My understanding is the "Student Union" was a body whose job was to look after students. It certainly was compulsory. Well at least paying the fee was. It isn't large, it's around $250/annum now I think. In return you got a hodgepodge of services - cheap refectory food, accommodation help, a 2nd book store, free legal advice from final year law students, clubs for every imaginable activity - the list went on and on.

Back then I didn't know quite to make of it. I just used the services and ignore the politics. Now I think it is a really cool social engineering trick. The students can use all sorts of help - finding jobs, finding accommodation, cheap books, medical services. For many this is their first time away from home, and they really could use some help so they don't get too distracted from their studies when they make the inevitable mistakes. The Uni administrators just aren't up to providing this sort of stuff. The right people to provide it are the students themselves. They know what they need. The trick is getting them to provide it.

Uni students are your typical group of lazy ungovernable dysfunctional juveniles. Getting them to organise themselves into providing these services seems impossible - yet that is what the "Student Union" accomplished. The trick ended up being force them to pay a small sum of money, and allowing them to democratically elect a council to disperse it, and finally providing a few buildings to work out of. Provided you were willing to put up with the very messy and noisy politics of them choosing their representatives the result was remarkable. They made that measly $100 (in my day) stretch beyond what you would believe is possible. I think that was partially because so many of them worked for free within the union - like the law students.

Well, it was remarkable. Then Howard's lot came along, and unlike all liberal governments before them took exception to the word "Union" in the name, and banned it. Idiots.

Student Unions will now face a new dilemma. Will they continue to support the feral Greens or will they support the new sex party. I suppose it depends on who can scoop the lowest.