Under the dominant paradigm of political advocacy it does take money to speak out effectively. I think JWH and co were focused on shortcircuiting this, while satisfying more than a few old scores in the process. I don’t terribly mind the outcome and I reckon these chickens may come back to roost (see WA.)

It doesn’t cost anything to speak out. Compulsory unionism was always just a great excuse to steal money from students to provide the in-crowd with cheap beer and pizza, and funnel money to their pet political causes.

The fact that the left still believes that struggling students should be forced to fund the upper-middle class private school socialists that dominate student politics just goes to show where their real priorities lie.

“These analogies are very awkward. The non-academic fee is not levied by a government authorised to tax; students cannot go to jail for refusing to pay. How much students pay for an amenities fee depends on what university they attend, and whether they are enrolled full or part-time. It is not a percentage of income or assets, the usual way of calculating taxes and rates. By paying a non-academic fee students become directly entitled to a package of services, while taxes and government services operate independently of each other. Student associations are more like political parties or interest groups than agencies of the state. The non-academic fee needs no analogy. It is exactly what its name suggests, a market fee.”

What rubbish. It is like making membership of the Liberal or Labor party voluntary, which it is and always has been.

The analogy with taxes does not hold up. Taxes can be justified for things like defence and some forms of public infrastucture that cannot easily be provided otherwise. The things that student stirrers want to have funded by compulsory fees do not fit into that category.