Volition

> Voluntary Student Unionism (VSU) is one of
> the more exceptionally stupid ideas to come
> out of the Howard Government to date.

Voluntary Student Unionism is a straightforward matter of freedom, and freedom is not stupid, and I would have hoped you of all people would realise this.

> You can say good-by to catering and pubs on
> campus, to clubs and sports associations,

To some of them. Some will keep going through.

> to social support services like counseling,
> employment and accomodation, academic support
> services like computing resource centers,

If these are services that students need in order to attend universities, they should be supplied by universities or the government, not by funds levied against other students.

> student representation

At one period, Adelaide University consistently had the highest turnout of voters of student elections at the country. That was 10%. That means only 10% of Adelaide University union members care enough about the union (and its subsiduries) to put in a vote. Many Australian campuses will never have had a turnout above 5%. This is not the sign of a healthy culture.

> and organised social activites.

There will still be organised social activities at universities so long as there are students who enjoy beer.

This reminds me - catering services are one illustration of how ridiculous the current system is. How is it that stores that have a captive market of several thousand people a day can have so much difficulty running an efficient operations? At Flinders, we used to drive to Marion at lunch because the food there was better value than at the university. I've heard similar stories about places on North Terrace and Rundle Street compared to (heavily subsidised) campus facilities at Adelaide.

> Some students may contend that they do not
> use these services, so why should they pay?
> First off, I honestly doubt that is the case.
> I doubt there exists a student that has
> never eaten, drunk a beer [..] [...] [....]

None of this is evidence that VSU is a bad thing. Compulsory Student Unionism leads to poor value for money. If I'm in receipt of a diary that has cost me an arm and a leg, of course I'm likely use it. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't get by if I didn't have it, but was able to have my student services fee back.

As for clubs - some will do well. Just think of all those members who will suddenly have an extra $300 a year that they can spend on their favourite club instead of having to make do with what was left after having bought a round for the football club and tossed in a trip to Ballarat for somebody to attend a wanky conference.

A citizen who is determined to improve their education through tertiary study can apply to go to university, enroll, study, borrow books from the library and graduate without spending very much money at all. Under HECS, all of their education costs are deferred until a time when they are earning an income not a lot lower than the average Australian wage, and even then the rate of payback is scaled to increase with their wages. However - in the current system, this student will pay an upfront, compulsory fee for services they may never use, and if they don't, the bastards in the university administration will deny them a degree for services they will never use!

*Poor* students don't use the university caffeteria - they bring their lunch from home. Poor students don't get the benefit of sports clubs with expensive membership fees and time investment, or any club at all if they are supporting themselves with a tough job that doesn't fit in well with study commitments, or if they have kids and are trying to balance huge responsibilities with their future. Compulsory student unionism is a form of reverse wellfare. Here I am - a young professional who may well be earning the average wage or a bit better, heading off to Adelaide Uni once a week to sing with a choir at Adelaide... subsidised by poor students [1]! I am far from the exception. Many university clubs have a substantial population of young professionals, or else poeople who enroll and defer in order to get access to particular university services.

Under VSU, our population will be more fairly levied for the services we use, because we'll have to start making up for the losses incurred by the removal of poor student's money.

Some people shrug their shoulders to this (perhaps daddy paid their student services fees in times when they could have been doing it tough) - they talk about 'the university experience' and the role of student fees in supplying that. We pay taxes and have state and federal governmets and councils - what's wrong with the idea of a 'university council', they ask. Several hundred years ago, people with vested interests said similar things about the established church. They would identify the magnificent things the church did - the musical tradition, wonderful buildings, a sense of community. And I'm confident that many of these spokesment would have added a sting in the tail offering listeners an opportunity to be for or against God in their decision. Yet sensible people of those times stuck to their guns, and told those wankers to get stuffed, and we enjoy a freedom today that they could only have imagined.

This is a much more straightforward issue. We don't have to make a decision on whether we're pro-God or not on this - we just have to realise that the current system is stupid and that giving people freedom is usually a good way to make their lives better. We have had much more opportunity to learn this rule than people in times past.

Michael - I'm not surprised by your stance, but I hope you at least harbour an uncomfortable feeling that it is *completely inconsistent* with your usually pro-freedom stances. You would argue that it is unreasonable for people to be forced to buy Windows when they buy a computer from any major computer manufacturer, in spite of the fact that the vast majority of x86 users use Windows and would prefer it to other x86 platforms given a choir in an even field. The reasons for this call would be that in spite of what Windows gives you, it represents appalling value for the amount of money that Microsoft makes, it's not free software in the Stallman sense, and because people shouldn't be forced into paying for Windows when they want to laptop on which they're going to run something else. If is a principle of freedom.

Further, I doubt you'd like it if the only way you could get a beer in Adelaide was buy it from a pub where you would be required to also pay for a meal - being as it is an essential part of 'the pub experience'. And I am certain that you would be unhappy if you had to pay 10% of your income to the Anglican Church.

People with vested interests control student newspapers, radio, representation and outnumber normal people at the unibar. As a result VSU is a lot less trendy than most freedom issues - but that doesn't make it any less sensible.

VSU is an issue of freedom. The culture of forcing students (many of them living in genuine poverty in order to improve their future) to
- prob up elaborate sports programs
- pay for a university art collection [2]
- subsidise food at a campus they might not even live in the same state as
- finance student politicians through degrees they often don't complete
- fund marginal seat campaigns in federal elections where there is a likelihood that afforementioned student politicians will enjoy staffer jobs at a later date
- endure university administrations the knowingly turn a blind eye to rampant corruption and conflict of interest with money they levy
- provide basic facilities like toilets and womens' rooms that the university should be supplying
... is unarguably unethical behaviour for anyone with a commitment to consumer rights, freedom of association, or the principle that education should be accessible to all.

I completed the requirements of my degree some time ago, but decided I wouldn't pick it up except under a VSU regime due to the disgust I felt at the abuses the Flinders administration have turned a blind eye to over the years [4]. I am looking forward to a huge party the night that VSU passes through the senate, and collecting my piece of paper early next year.

Good day, sir! :)

[1] In fact I'm not - I consciously work to give back more than I take and I believe AUCS will strengthen under VSU due to wealthier members, less competition from clubs with weaker cultures, and a strong membership of professionals - but we were subjected to 'the speech' about the evils of freedom at rehearsal last night so I'm sure some CSU advocates will find it compelling.

[2] Have you seen the Adelaide Union's collection?[3] Poor students help pay for that.

[3] 495 works; established 1942; 0.6 staff

[4] Including several breaches of conflict of interest principles, irregular grants of tens of thousands of dollars towards marginal seat campaigns in federal elections, gross electoral irregularities such as (1) leaving candidate names off the electoral sheet, (2) allowing registration of tickets in conflict with clearly worded rules stated in electoral regulartions, (3) allowing elections to continue when no broadsheet was released before the open of elections, also in clear breach of clearly worded electoral regulations, (4) fudging the appeals process to deny applicants fair opportunity to present their case and (5) railroading the completely obvious irregularities which would in any legitimate electoral system have been cause for fresh elections.[5] And this is just stuff I knew about. I had a (strictly non-political) job keeping me busy while I was at uni and I didn't have mentors to teach me the tricks of the trade, so it's reasonable to assume that there have been none too few laughs at the pub about various things that that strange Craig follow didn't pick up on.

[5] The administration knew all about this. I discussed it at length with the Dean told me that I "lacked understanding", raised her voice at me when I said that that was unacceptable and told me towards the end of our conversation that I had "a political agenda" in an accusing tone. Who would have thought? It's the 21st century, we live in a western demoncracy and this stuff goes on.

Posted by: Craig Turner on April 28, 2005 11:26 PM

I have to agree with Craig on this one. I really struggle to pay the $300 a year for the Student Union at AU and I can guarantee you that I dont get much of that back, as I dont make use of any of the free services provided by the uni (I dont need counselling, and I dodn even use unibooks as I've found that Encompass Infoshop in the city is a lot cheaper).

You stated that;
"Some students may contend that they do not use these services, so why should they pay? First off, I honestly doubt that is the case. I doubt there exists a student that has never eaten, drunk a beer or seen a band play on campus."
I use both the Mayo and the unibar pretty frequently... but I honestly believe that both of them can float themselves as independant businesses. Even if the prices on beer was to go up, I still dont think it would add up to the $300 a year I already spend on the union. If the government introduces VSU's, then there will still be these services on campus, quite simply because the university is a pretty marketable place to sell food and alcohol.

"Ever used your student diary?"
The diary is an enormous waste of paper. I only use it for the beer vouchers :)

"How about printing and binding an assignment?"
At home, unfortunately. I didn;t even know I can bind my assignments at uni.

"Read the campus newspaper?"
I will miss On Dit, and I admit that I wouldn't pay for it, however, I still dont want to pay $300 a year for it :)

"All of these things are supported by the union. But much more importantly, what if you do need to use any of these services in the future? Need a quick snack?"
I could go into the city... or just go to the business that will be on the university and not run by the union.

"Need help finding a job after you graduate?"
I'm pretty sure the university union wont help me find a job after i graduate. The LSS is pretty good, though, and I dont have to pay for them...

"Find yourself in dire need of joining a football team?"
Why cant i just go to my local club, like everyone else? Most of the universities sports teams are just an excuse to meet people and get drunk anyway :)

I probably would be more likely to be against VSU if the fee's were only $50 a semester, or $100 a year. But the price as it is is pretty ridiculous; I have an aquiantance who is on the University union, and he gets paid a lot of money (my money) to sit on his ass and argue with the other members, he admits this to me and thinks that VSU's are probably a good idea- he's sick of paying the fees too.

Either way, its not going to have much to do with us. Students have extremely little influence over the government, and with control over the senate the opposition cant stop the bill either. I wont be too upset when i dont have to pay my fees.

Thanks for the chance to present my opinions. :)

Posted by: Shannon on April 29, 2005 12:31 AM

> Voluntary Student Unionism is a straightforward
> matter of freedom, and freedom is not stupid, and
> I would have hoped you of all people would realise
> this.

Hey, look, I am all for freedom. But VSU isn't about freedom - it is a tax cut for those who don't need it and another way to edge unionism out of the national mindset. VSU is reducing student freedom by reducing the services equally available to each student.

These days I probably fall into group of people who do not recieve much benefit from the student union but that hasn't always been the case. Still, I would much rather keep on paying my union fees because it provides support for people who do need it.

Mandatory student union fees are much like taxes: We all pay them for the good of everyone. I don't use the vast majority of roads in the country, for example, but I still pay tax to have them maintained. In the same way we don't use all the student services funded by the union, but it is for the common good and so should be maintained.

Compulsory student unionism might fund things like art hanging on the walls of the Union but my taxes have also funded art hanging on the walls of parliaments and other government buildings around the country. The solution to the latter problem (is it a problem?) is not to abolish taxes and the solution to the former is not VSU.

> To some of them. Some will keep going through.

Yes, this is true, but only those that actually make a profit (do any services actually do so?), those that can be made to make a profit and those few that are considered core and are not too expensive.

For those that can be made profitable, it will be acheived by introducing or increasing fees, both of which will make the services available to a smaller percentage of the student body. Financially disadvantaged students - those least able to afford non-subsidised services - are those who will be excluded.

> If these are services that students need in
> order to attend universities, they should be
> supplied by universities or the government, not
> by funds levied against other students.

Well, in an era of reduced funding for Universities, I can't see that happening. Not that the University is going to provide any additional facilities and services anyway. Not beyond those that are absolutely required for academic syllabi or research programmes - i.e. what they already provide.

Yes, that means that these services are not required to get your degree. If it makes teh difference between getting a job to help pay your way through Uni, or providing a non-academic outlet so you don't go insane while studying, or keeps you sheltered during the course of your degree programme, then I'm all for it. We're only human, after all.

> Many Australian campuses will never have had a
> turnout above 5%. This is not the sign of a
> healthy culture.

Wht kind of culture are we talking about here? The student politics scene? :D

> This reminds me - catering services are one
> illustration of how ridiculous the current
> system is.

That is an issue, but if you consider that VSU may remove funds catering needs to survive, then clearly there will be no catering on-campus. I would find that annoying. I don't eat at the Mayo every day, but when I do, it has been because I've only had a few dollars for lunch or was in a rush or I just needed a quite place to have a coffee while finishing off an assignment.

> None of this is evidence that VSU is a bad
> thing.

No, it is evidence that compulsory student unionism is a good thing.

> Compulsory Student Unionism leads to poor value
> for money.

Only if you don't use or need the services. If you do use or need the services, then it can be quite good value for money.

> *Poor* students don't use the university
> caffeteria - they bring their lunch from home.

Sure, but they also use the computing resource centre and the accomodation service. They get a cheap lunch if they go to one of the activities BBQs. They get the opportunity to participate in student radio and various clubs. And so on.

> Poor students don't get the benefit of sports
> clubs [snip]

Oh, come on. Sure, such students might not be able to afford to do Auski, but they can still join the movie club, the karate club, the chess club and participate. VSU threatens all these fringe clubs that might not be popular or profitable, but still provide benefits to the students who are members.

Why should less popular or profitable clubs not exist just because they are less popular or profitable?

The same applies to all the other services supported by your union fees.

> Compulsory student unionism is a form of reverse
> wellfare.

That's only the case of you exclude all the services that you fund that are used by students who aren't members of AUCS.

> Under VSU, our population will be more fairly
> levied for the services we use, because we'll
> have to start making up for the losses incurred
> by the removal of poor student's money.

No, the population who can't afford to or don't have any interest in the popular or profitable clubs and services will just be disadvantaged.

> we just have to realise that the current system
> is stupid and that giving people freedom is
> usually a good way to make their lives better.

The current system may be stupid - certainly a percentage of students are disadvantaged by compulsory unionism, but as I said above those students may benefit from the services in the future and at least financially disadvantaged students can still participate.

Anyway, I see no evidence that VSU is a better system. Maybe we should be fixing the current system then replacing it with something that is IMHO more broken.

You'll have to provide more information about the whole church parallel, I'm not informed enough about it to determine if it is valid.

The difference with buying a computer with Windows pre-installed is that I receive no benefit from it at all and it helps no one else but Microsoft. I can still receive benefit from paying my student fees, however and it does help others.

As I suggested to above, fixing problems with corruption and distribution of funds collected from compulsory unionism by introducing VSU is counterproductive. Sure you get rid of the corruption and distribution problems, but you lose a lot (most? all?) of the benefits as well. Its the Aliens approach: Nuke it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure. Which is nice and effective, but what if I want to keep the planet as well?

So, have I changed your mind? ;)

Posted by: Mike on April 29, 2005 01:07 AM

Hey Shannon,

If you do not use the services provided by your fees, then I can see why you don't want to pay for them. However VSU will leave a lot of students disadvantaged - the students who do use those services. If some of the problems Craig alluded to can be solved, then maybe the cost can come down, but I don't think those problesm, or that fact that we don't happen to use all the services we fund is justifcation for VSU.

> If the government introduces VSU's, then there
> will still be these services on campus, quite
> simply because the university is a pretty
> marketable place to sell food and alcohol.

Well that remains to be seen. I don't think it is possible, certainly not at the current service level - i.e. for food and beer, at the same cost. Any cost increases will just drive more students off campus, so I think you will quickly see things like the UniBar disappear.

> Either way, its not going to have much to do
> with us. Students have extremely little
> influence over the government, and with control
> over the senate the opposition cant stop the
> bill either.

You know, for me, that is teh most depressing thing about this whole episode. We can rant and rave all we like (I certainly do) but in the end, nothing we say or do will make a difference either way: http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200504/s1355841.htm

> Thanks for the chance to present my opinions. :)

Not a problem. :)

Posted by: Mike on April 29, 2005 01:23 AM

So, does the VSU-is-freedom thing extend to tax? I sure as fuck don't want to pay for more missile frigates.

Actually it's worse than that, here my taxes pay for actual honest-to-God nuclear weapons. Tell you what, introduce VSU, and use my taxes to pay for your student union. We'll call it even.

Posted by: Joel on April 29, 2005 07:24 AM

Yeah, yeah, HECS is evil yet taxing students is cool.

People shouldn't have to pay a cent for an tertiary education, but, on the other hand, they should darn well pay $300 per year to subsidise wannabe politicians, unprofitable (how!?) on-campus stores and clubs.

Posted by: Dave Hill on April 30, 2005 01:31 AM

> Without continued funding from all students,
> student unions will not be able to provide the
> same level and number of services that they
> currently do.

The problem with this argument is that, over time, student unions are providing less, and charging more. The first time I went to the University of Adelaide was in 1990, and the most recent time was 2003. The services and facilites provided by the Union in the early 90s were significantly better in quality and quantity than they are now. And yet, the Union Fee is higher.

> You can say good-by to catering and pubs on
> campus,

We already have. In 1990, if I recall correctly, there were three refectories, a bistro, a cafe and some weird underground food place beneath Union Hall. What is there now? A refectory and a cafe. The bistro, the cafe and the bar were licensed in 1990. Now you can only get a drink at the cafe or the bar.

Otherwise, what Craig said.

Posted by: Paul Hoadley on April 30, 2005 09:35 AM

I'm not completely sure I buy the whole 'freedom' argument either. As I said, I would happily pay my union fees if I felt I was getting value for money. At this stage I dont think I am. I also joined the SDA (retail union) and so far they've got me two payrises, and they take a dollar out of every paycheck... probably about $30 a year. The payrises would add up to a lot more than that, and the SDA isn't even compulsory.

I'm wondering if I could argue that we dont need the VSU -because- we have taxes. If my money needs to go towards counselling for someone else, dont my government taxes provide for healthcare to those that need it? Why do i need to do so through the university union as well, it might be a bit of a double up?

"However VSU will leave a lot of students disadvantaged - the students who do use those services. If some of the problems Craig alluded to can be solved, then maybe the cost can come down, but I don't think those problesm, or that fact that we don't happen to use all the services we fund is justifcation for VSU."
I know its pretty selfish; but I dont think I should have to pay money for someone elses counselling bill. Nor should I be paying for the unions feeble protests against a government thats never going to care. I respect the students right to protest, but when they start using my money to pay for protests and free beer and food to protest, I feel like my money id being wasted. Surely there are other government/non-government programs that can help these people.

You're right about the university venues being replaced... but I am pretty sure that the unibar is already floating itself and is a pretty viable business without union support.

Posted by: Shannon on April 30, 2005 02:58 PM

Er Craig. Aren't you a member of the Liberal Party?

Posted by: a concerned bystander on May 2, 2005 10:17 AM

Yeah, Craig, your opinion is obviously invalid now.

Posted by: Dave Hill on May 2, 2005 04:53 PM

Dave: Who is complaining about HECS?

Paul: Surely any problem with the effectiveness of student unions should be addressed by fixing those problems, rather than disbanding them?

Shannon: Not needing VSU because we already pay taxes might work if the government actually funded our universities properly. As it is I don't see any replacement funding coming and the Federal Government is actually threatening to cut funding to any Unis that try to charge anything like a student services fee.

I didn't particulary care to see my taxes support the US in Iraq or fund yet another motorway, so does that make us even? :)

Concerned: Down in front!

Posted by: Mike on May 2, 2005 08:53 PM

> Surely any problem with the effectiveness of
> student unions should be addressed by fixing
> those problems, rather than disbanding them?

That's a reasonable suggestion, but I guess my response would be: we've been throwing progressively more money at the problem for over a decade, and it's getting _worse_, not better. Look, I agree with you---I think I pretty much saw the tail end of what a great student union could do for campus life in the early 90s. But campuses seem to be a lot different now. (And I think a lot of that is down to the students themselves---they're a vastly different species these days. But that's a different soapbox.) When student unions work, it's all great. But they don't seem to work anymore, and money doesn't seem to fix it. We've given it a decade---what more do you want?

Posted by: Paul Hoadley on May 3, 2005 12:55 AM

> Dave: Who is complaining about HECS?

Hippies and communists. That's who! Oh, and students.

BTW, is the Student Union a government body? If not, then it's not the same as paying taxes.

Posted by: Dave Hill on May 3, 2005 07:05 AM

> Er Craig. Aren't you a member of the Liberal
> Party?

Dear "concerned bypasser" (how bold of you!): not *only* am I a member of the Liberal Party, I'm the only one in recent memory to have run for nomination on a pro-VSU platform. In my speech to the 2001 Adelaide (state) preselection college I waved my (unpaid) student services fee invoice through the audience at John Olsen and told him that the fact people were still forced to fund student rorts was the most effective example of the wasted opportunities of his administration. (Virtually all the audience applauded heavily at this point although later voted for the other chap :) )

Cute though this banter may be, who I am or who I am not is irrelevant. The arguments in favour of VSU - as with any issue - should be judged on their own merit.

Posted by: Craig Turner on May 3, 2005 08:54 PM

Paul: I'm not sure if anything has been attempted to fix these problems with the student unions. I haven't looked into it myself and nether side of the VSU depat really seems to be talking about it. So it seems that nothing has really been done about it. Certainly I'd expect the pro-VSU side to be pretty vocal if some sort of reform had been attempted, but failed.

I don't see the increases in student fees as being an attempt to fix any such problems, if anything it's just a symptom.

Dave: No, student union fees are not taxes, but they solve the same problem in the same way. The crux of the pro-VSU side has been that it is about increasing student freedom and choice. If that (and any other argument) holds for compulsory fees then it should also hold for taxes, but I don't see the Federal Government legislating to make paying tax optional.

Posted by: on May 5, 2005 01:50 PM

bring on VSU!

Comparing the current scheme to a Tax is a joke. The average Australian needs the services the Government provides (it Roads, the Health System, the Police Force etc). The average student does not need the majority of services unions provide. They are exceptionally poor value for money.

Posted by: Bob on May 11, 2005 12:49 PM

While the debate about compulsory student union membership continues it is interesting to note that the ALP, Unions and others are opposed to the very body they so often champion for their cause, the United Nations. Article 20.(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states;

Article 20.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.

(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

If the ALP, Greens, Democrats, Unions and other interested parties with vested interests in this debate are serious about students and human rights surely they would recognise the United Nations charter in this instance. Is this just another case of them all being very selective about individual rights and who gets them? Voluntary membership is the only option according to the United Nations.

If people wish to join any union they will and should not be compelled to do so. The parties who champion compulsory membership are not serious about the individual's right to choose and are clearly ignoring the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

A vote against voluntary membership can only be seen as an assault on the United Nations' Declaration of Human Rights and a denial to the Australian people of their human rights and freedom of choice.

Posted by: Dave Longuet on October 5, 2005 03:21 PM

Hi Dave,

Did you know that there are many actual abuses of human rights being perpetrated in Australia and by Australians every day, such as mandatory detention of refugees, the ongoing incarceration of David Hicks and the continuted mis-treatment of indigenous Australians.

These are cases where people actually suffer because of our action or inaction, unlike the students that attend University and so must pay a student services fee.

How about, instead of trivialising the issue, we fix these real abuses first? Then we can have a debate about whether the compulsory fee is contravening the UDHR without being completely fucking hypocritical.

Sound like a plan?

Posted by: Mike on October 5, 2005 07:24 PM