VSU: forcing efficiency or silencing students?
Last year in Parliament, Labor Senator Penny Wong outlined the possible ramifications of the Government’s VSU legislation, which removes the dedicated funding stream previously provided to student organisations: “Health services, child care, sporting infrastructure, counselling, clubs and societies, orientation activities, financial services, housing services and legal support services are all hanging in the balance.”
Similar concerns are shared by some in the Nationals, the Democrats and the Greens. But are they right?
According to Jenny Macklin, Shadow Minister for Education, the “experience in Western Australia when they implemented the same legislation over there a few years ago” meant “many of the universities lost a wide range of different services…One of the university student associations actually went into liquidation.” Showing the important of perspective, the Liberals argue that the experience in Western Australia has actually shown that half-decent student organisations can attract financial members without compulsion. What’s true is that most of the items outlined by Senator Wong can be provided at competitive rates by the marketplace. For some students removal of the compulsory fee will mean a saving in excess of $400 each year, which students might use to pay for on an individual basis services previously bundled together in the one fee. This adds a new dimension of accountability that previously didn’t exist.
However, the suggestion that students are being forced to join affiliated organisations as a condition of enrolment has been a furphy. Macklin contends “students have [already] had the right not to belong to their student associations if they don’t want to. We haven’t had universities insisting that students must join their student association.”
Rachel Hills, a recent graduate of Sydney University, feels many students support the Government, and not just because of politics or ideology. “A lot of students don’t feel that student organisations are relevant to them anymore,” she notes. “…while most students recognise the benefits of things like subsidised legal aid and emergency loans, if they don’t foresee themselves needing to use it, they may be reluctant to pay the fees.”
Yet it’s not just reluctance. Melbourne University Science/Law students Narthana Epa and Nicholas Liau find it difficult to see clear-cut benefits. “[T]o play soccer this year for the university would have cost me $220 plus the cost of a uniform and gear,” says Liau. “To play soccer for an outside club would have cost just $150 including uniform… our fees are not being spent prudently given the outrageously high cost of joining supposedly subsidised clubs.”
At Melbourne the amenities fee for 2006 was $392 says Epa. He finds it “hard to imagine anyone recouping this amount through free barbecues”, instead suggesting “free second hand textbooks” to the disadvantaged be the union’s main priority. The union does not focus on welfare, he argues, “it just provides various services most of which are recreational… I don’t see why I need to fund the recreation of my fellow students”.
Both agree fees for extra-curricular services are a burden on poorer students. And Liau would not like to see the death of student clubs. “Hopefully these clubs will survive by charging more for membership,” he says. “This way clubs will still survive, and students will be able to choose how to spend their own money.”
These sorts of fees are only a barrier to study because they must be paid up-front. In addition to giving universities the choice of implementing VSU, some like Andrew Norton (a research fellow at the Centre for Independent Studies) have supported a compromise involving the merging of the amenities fee under the HECS loan scheme. This would improve equity as disadvantaged students could defer the fee.
The ALP remains undecided on whether it would support such a scheme, says Macklin. “What Labor said we’ll do is look at a variety of ways that we can make sure these services and the representation role that student associations play on our campuses can continue. So we haven’t finalised what our position will be or how we’ll do that but we have a very clear objective…”
Although some students have a vested financial interest in supporting VSU, according to Rick Kuhn of the Australian National University that shouldn’t be what drives good policy. “The idea of ‘voluntary student unionism’ is like that of ‘voluntary taxation’” he writes. “Student unions provide services… from which all students benefit…Making student union membership and fees voluntary is as much of a nonsense as making membership of the Australian political system and the payment of taxes voluntary.”
The impact of the legislation will be felt particularly, but not exclusively, in regional areas, warns Macklin. “There’s no doubt that regional universities are under very serious financial pressure… But it’s true in the city as well, many of the suburban city universities, they have facilities that are widely used and it’s going to have a very big impact both on the student population [and] the surrounding community.” Macklin concedes however, that “it’s a little too early to say what it’s going to be like exactly at each university.”
Sports and clubs will survive without subsidy, argues Norton, as they do in thousands of voluntary associations across Australia. “Health services, apart from dental services, are largely funded by Medicare anyway… Universities will pay for some other essential services.”
As far as financial models go, the Monash Association of Debaters is an interesting sample of what the future might be like. Its 275 members receive only a fraction of their budget through the union – most funding comes from the university itself, the law school and law firm Freehills.
That VSU has the potential to hurt the Government is clear: a Roy Morgan poll published in December 2005 showed a swing back to the Coalition, but largely because VSU had ceased to become a hot issue. Clearly, tentative support from the ‘silent majority’ does not translate to political immunity. For the Government’s sake, it should hope things turn out well on Australian campuses.
21 Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
-
Recent Comments
Catallaxy Files- Evaluating Rudd’s Fiscal Stimulus February 11, 2012I am just giving you a sneak preview of my piece in the Inquirer section of The Australian today. You will all have to run up to the newsagency or go on-line to read it. No doubt, it will make me popular with parts of the blogosphere! Gosh, at least Alesina’s paper was published in [...]Judith Sloan
- Should the RBA intervene to lower the Australian dollar? February 10, 2012I had this piece in The Australian during the week. I became interested in the topic during my visit to Switzerland. I conclude that the RBA will not, and probably should not, intervene but it is an interesting topic. The value of the Australian dollar is putting many of our trade-exposed industries under real pressure. [...]Judith Sloan
- Open Forum: February 11, 2012 February 10, 2012 Sinclair Davidson
- Evaluating Rudd’s Fiscal Stimulus February 11, 2012
- inCISe
- Oliver Hartwich:Greece’s austerity package February 11, 2012 Editor
- Amnesty on truth February 10, 2012I’m ashamed to admit I was a member of Amnesty International in high school. Back then I proudly wore an Amnesty badge on a black beret. Now I cringe at the memory of my naive self lapping up their hyperbole. The Sydney Morning Herald recently reported that Amnesty International is urging a parliamentary human rights watchdog to investigate the federal gover […]Sara Hudson
- More on PHI rebate means test February 10, 2012When I wrote in Incise yesterday, ‘Rebate should not be means tested,’ I did not expect events to move quite as quickly as they have. The government seems confident it has the numbers to get the means test through. I wouldn’t be surprised if Rob Oakshott and Andrew Wilkie have indeed swallowed the government’s nonsensical arguments, but it will be interestin […]Robert Carling
- IPA news
- Let European dogs lie February 9, 2012Australians will be surprised to learn that, apparently, the federal government now has responsibility to help the city of...
- It's time to bring back the thrift February 9, 2012Ted Baillieu plans to shave 3600 jobs from Victoria's bloated public service. The state of Wisconsin in the US, with a...
- We'll huff, we'll puff, we'll blow the budget into surplus February 8, 2012Bill Clinton famously said, "It's the economy, stupid". So it is. Unsuccessful politicians might be inclined to argue,...
- Let European dogs lie February 9, 2012
If something is good, people will pay for it. Of course, people have been known to pay for shite – think Windoze – but this is the exception, not the norm, and probably arises from market distortions.
I didn’t like having to pay for something regardless. I was one of those poor students who found the bloody union fee an endless struggle.
Solid article.
I particularly like the example relating to the high cost of many union provided activities such as soccer clubs.
Last year at Melbourne Uni, students got the privelige of using a union subsidised dentist for $50 a visit – $5 more than my local, unsubsidised dentist charges. Non-students get charged even more exhorbitant fees, $80 per visit.
I have personally found that the VSU legislation has forced a massive cut back of services at Deakin University. The DUSA (Deakin University Student Union) budget has been slashed by more than half and is struggling to keep a decent range of services operating. They run a book shop which had discounted books for all students but now can only offer that discount to DUSA members, free lunches are now unavailable to non-members, etc. The budget cuts have even forced DUSA to consider shutting down the student bar, which serves as a vital social outlet.
It is simply undeniable that the University experience has been noticably diminished by the VSU legislation. The result of legislation formed by people who have no experience of how University life operates and instead their opinions are formed solely by the bottom line.
The VSU would seem to be nothing more than the Liberal Governments continuing anti-union push, since they don’t like people being organised enough to hold mass demonstrations.
Wait, so is compulsory unionism about providing services to students, or about organising mass demonstrations?
It’s about providing students services (which are now rather diminished thanks to the VSU) and providing students the opportunity to have a voice which can be heard – otherwise, students are a reasonably ignored interest group (unlike big business, for example). Student unions allowed students the opportunity to voice their opinions in a manner which were heard, now that students (typically rather cash strapped) are more or less forced into not joining a SU, that voice and opportunity is now gone.
Again, it seems pretty clear that the VSU is all part of the Liberal Government’s anti-union agenda.
I couldn’t afford the union fees as a student, Matt. The private charitable organisation that covered most of my costs through university paid them for me, despite the fact that I would have been better off collecting the money myself and paying for any services I used. I would certainly have been ahead economically.
Previously, before VSU, students at Deakin had to pay $140 as a General Service Fee which paid for their DUSA membership and also for a host of other University services. Now VSU is in, students have a choice to pay $40 or not to join DUSA – and with the pathetic pitance that students get via austudy or newstart, that $40 is something they feel they can not pay despite the benefits they gain. Therefore, students are placed in a reprehensible position wherein it seems to outside parties that they have a choice but due to the nature of their finances, they have no REAL choice at all.
The VSU is bad policy that greatly diminishes the University experience and quietens students voices (who, generally speaking, are against Liberal Party policy).
Previously, before VSU, Edith CowanUniversity students had to pay $120 a semester for Union membership and no other services.
Now they pay nothing.
Compulsory student unionism was a rort to compel students to fund left-wing political campaigns.
We paid $3 for a chiko roll at our university canteen when unions were compulsory.
‘before VSU, students at Deakin had to pay $140 as a General Service Fee … Now VSU is in, students have a choice to pay $40 … with the pathetic pitance that students get via austudy or newstart, that $40 is something they feel they can not pay despite the benefits they gain. ‘
Hmmm… Sounds like most students are $140 better off. Mind you, students don’t have to go on welfare (austudy or newstart) to pay union fees, they could always eat cake … no, no, sorry, wrong quote. They could always get a job.
“Compulsory student unionism was a rort to compel students to fund left-wing political campaigns.”
A rather cynical view of student unions, to say the least. The opportunity to give students an actual voice was important, since otherwise they had little power/clout with political figures (unlike, for example, big business who seem to more or less own the current government).
Even services that students might not think they’d need at the start of the year but suddenly find rather necessary (such as student advocacy, housing services, student loans, etc) are blocked from student access simply because they can’t pay the voluntary payment – and the simple fact of the matter is that if a payment is voluntary then students simply won’t pay it because of the laughable amount they get from newstart/austudy.
Who are these student representatives supposed to be representing exactly? The less than 10% of students who care enough to vote at student elections? They can still do this, without taking money from the other 90% of us through force.
In any case, if the government allowed universities to charge more tuition fees there would be no problem in university administrations providing services and the student union reps doing the ‘student voice’ part.
At Melbourne University all students know that union reps are just doing it as a way to boost their future career prospects. Under compulsory unionism once they’re elected they do very little to directly help students.
Indeed, they turn on the very people who elected them. There’s an article in the current edition of the left-wing rag Farrago where the elected Welfare officer basically calls Melbourne Uni students ‘elite’ and doubts our moral conscience if we support Howard’s IR laws.
Under the non-means tested union fee, students were forced to pay for the free barbeques and entertainment of other students. Before VSU, student unions could think up new and ingenious ways to waste student money. Now they have to earn our trust and get us to hand over money voluntarily.
“doubts our moral conscience if we support Howard’s IR laws.”
That’s a fair enough call; they’re nothing short of an abomination, afterall.
“Under the non-means tested union fee, students were forced to pay for the free barbeques and entertainment of other students. Before VSU, student unions could think up new and ingenious ways to waste student money”
Oddly enough, that sounds more or less like the current taxation system with the Government continuing to find great ways of wasting our money (such as wonderful mass amounts of government advertising, etc). The old General Service Fees, when you think about it, were a lot like a mini tax system – everyone chips in a bit and the University community as a whole greatly benefits.
Sticking with the philosophy embodied by the VSU legislation, simply because I don’t use or even like the services provided by the Government, I shouldn’t be paying tax. Somehow, I don’t think that would wash though.
‘a lot like a mini tax system’
That argument is old and tired. Universities are already supported by tax dollars and students can vote just like everyone else. The mafia could make the same argument – the government tries to suppress them too.
It doesn’t make it right because you are justifying one evil by citing another evil. It’s like saying we shouldn’t allow people to smoke on their private property because they might get lung cancer and become a drain on the public health system.
The point is both evils need to be tackled (in the case of smoking, healthcare should be deregulated and people forced to bear the full consequences of their smoking).
The VSU “debate” was an example of one with poor arguments on both sides.
The “freedom of association” argument is nonsense, as people could opt not to join the student association. At UQ, I recall, you paid 5% more if you decided not to join the union. The amount of money that went into demonstrations was no doubt a pretty tiny percent of the union fees.
On the other side, having VSU doesn’t prevent students from having a voice, and having an upfront fee of a couple of hundred dollars is an impost on people who don’t generally have fairly low incomes. Removing this up-front fee is great. When I started my PhD at Sydney Uni, the fee was something like $300 or $600 – I forget which – but I remember that my fortnightly income (on a scholarship) was about $600 and I had a month/fortnight to pay this fee!
Something that students associations didn’t acknowledge in my experience was that this upfront fee could be quite an impost, and so there was at least a moral imperative to run the assocation as efficiently and effectively as possible (quite apart from that this is a good approach in any event). Refectories seemed to be particularly famous for their inability to provide inexpensive, nutritious food.
Sorry – that should be “people who generally have low incomes”
Remember the infamous UQU refec chips and gravy Sacha? Deeesgusting!
Matt,
You still haven’t addressed Sinclair & other’s points about students being better of financially.
To summarise, you say students are too poor to pay $40 for voluntary union membership, but at the same time you think they would be better off being forced to pay $140 for membership??
Matt
Your statement that the university as a whole is better off is incorrect. The university student body as a whole are worse off. The vested interests who get money under compulsion that they wouldn’t otherwise get, are better off. Everyone else is worse off.
There is no money fairy. There is no process by which any society can get something for nothing, but the simple expedient of forced expropriation.
The services are not representative of the student body as a whole, they represent only the vested interests who benefitted by using coercion. If people are not smart enough to decide how to spend their own money, how can the same people be smart enoough to elect representatives over and above them to restrict their freedom to choose on the same topics? Answer please. The argument for VSU involves a fatal self-contradiction.
The only way you can argue in favour of compusion is to assume that you know what’s better for people, than people do for themselves. You don’t.
Your question about taxation is indeed spot on. There is no way that government services can add social value to the population as a whole, because (unlike consensual exchanges, which create mutual value) the process of confiscation destroys value. It is a win/lose: the stronger takes from the weaker without their consent, and value is destroyed. Also, because no-one chooses to pay for government services, there is no way of knowing whether they ‘satisfy’ their involuntary ‘customers’, and government employees do not have a vested interest in providing the service economically.
The benefits of government services are always obtained for the vested interest they favour at a greater general cost for the whole community.
If that were not so, it would follow that we could create the most social value by the government confiscating all the property of all the people. If the argument for compulsory student unionism were right, then there would be no need for freedom: the government could just have total power and tell everyone what to do, and the result would be fairer as well as more productive. That is simply nonsense.
“Remember the infamous UQU refec chips and gravy Sacha? Deeesgusting!”
Ooooooooooo – thanks for reminding me, skeptic!
Good on you, Justin – right on.