V for Voluntary
Voluntary student unionism: visionary or just political vendetta?
Last year in parliament, Labor Senator Penny Wong offered up a nightmare scenario for Australia’s universities. She predicted that come July this year — when voluntary student unionism (VSU) is enforced and campuses can no longer demand student union membership or fees — campus facilities will crumble. Down will go health services, child care, sporting infrastructure, counselling, clubs and societies, orientation activities, financial and housing services, and legal support. But if this is the case, why would the Howard Government pass such legislation?
“[VSU] is vengeance and vendetta dressed up as some kind of support for freedom of association,” says Democrat Senator Natasha Stott Despoja. “Are we really that scared of students in their organisations feeding into the democratic process, even protesting against what we do? Are we really so scared that we are going to completely destroy their opportunity to organise?” The Federal Government, of course, insists it has students’ best interests at heart. Requiring students to pay a General Services Fee is tantamount to being forced to support a union, it claims. But paying this fee is no different to paying taxes, argues Labor education spokesperson Jenny Macklin. “Students have [already] had the right not to belong to their student associations if they don’t want to,” she says. “We haven’t had universities insisting that students must join their student association.”
Voluntary student union legislation has its roots in the early 70s, when the Australian Liberal Students’ Federation (ALSF) attempted to exert its influence on the (mostly left-wing) student unions of the day. Since then, state governments in Western Australia and Victoria have introduced VSU. On both occasions, the Commonwealth stepped in to provide alternative funding arrangements to ensure that student unions continued to operate.
While the Western Australian VSU banned the compulsory membership or payment of fees to a student association, it also removed the guild president as a member of the University Council and prevented compulsory fees for “any service not directly related to an education course provided by the university.” Under VSU legislation in Jeff Kennett’s Victoria, a compulsory fee was still allowed, but it was to be used only for the funding of services listed in the Act or specifically approved by the Education Minister.
Now of course, it’s a federal Liberal government pushing VSU further than ever before. And most at risk, according to Macklin, are regional campuses, many of which are used by the wider community. “But it’s true in the city as well,” she says. “Many of the suburban city universities 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.”
All of this, says the government, is irrelevant and VSU is simply about market forces. “Why is it that the everyday student who wants to go to university is required to subsidise services, including what in some cases are the most extreme political activism?” asks former Minister for Education, Brendan Nelson. Indeed, many students support the government. “A lot of students don’t feel that student organisations are relevant to them anymore,” says Rachel Hills, a recent graduate of Sydney University. “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.”
Melbourne University Science/Law students Narthana Epa and Nicholas Liau also find it difficult to see the benefit of compulsory fees. “Our fees are not being spent prudently given the outrageously high cost of joining supposedly subsidised clubs,” says Liau. With an amenities fee of almost $400, Epa says he finds it hard to imagine “anyone recouping this amount through free barbecues.” He believes the union’s main priority should be in initiatives such as offering free second-hand textbooks to disadvantaged students.
While $80 million has been set aside to help universities fill the hole created by VSU, this money is bound to be gobbled up quickly. Clubs with a sporting or recreational focus may be able to survive by charging higher fees, but areas such as welfare and student representation simply won’t have that luxury. Paying a little more to play soccer is one thing, but for a student who wants to apply for a student loan, the money will no longer be there. And though scrapping the General Services Fee will save such students money in the short-term, this is hardly the basis for good policy making, says Rick Kuhn of Australian National University. “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,” he says.
According to Democrat Senator Andrew Bartlett, it’s student apathy and disenchantment that should be addressed, not removal of student unions. “Many students do ignore student politics but this doesn’t mean the services provided by the unions are not worthwhile and should be done away with,” he says. “Nor does it mean that student politics is a basket case.”
A Roy Morgan poll published late last year showed a swing back to the Coalition, largely because VSU had ceased to be a hot issue. But if the dire predictions of Penny Wong and co are correct, students and the wider community may yet teach the government a lesson at the polling booths.
by Sukrit Sabhlok & Lefa Singleton
Last year in parliament, Labor Senator Penny Wong offered up a nightmare scenario for Australia’s universities. She predicted that come July this year — when voluntary student unionism (VSU) is enforced and campuses can no longer demand student union membership or fees — campus facilities will crumble. Down will go health services, child care, sporting infrastructure, counselling, clubs and societies, orientation activities, financial and housing services, and legal support. But if this is the case, why would the Howard Government pass such legislation?
“[VSU] is vengeance and vendetta dressed up as some kind of support for freedom of association,” says Democrat Senator Natasha Stott Despoja. “Are we really that scared of students in their organisations feeding into the democratic process, even protesting against what we do? Are we really so scared that we are going to completely destroy their opportunity to organise?” The Federal Government, of course, insists it has students’ best interests at heart. Requiring students to pay a General Services Fee is tantamount to being forced to support a union, it claims. But paying this fee is no different to paying taxes, argues Labor education spokesperson Jenny Macklin. “Students have [already] had the right not to belong to their student associations if they don’t want to,” she says. “We haven’t had universities insisting that students must join their student association.”
Voluntary student union legislation has its roots in the early 70s, when the Australian Liberal Students’ Federation (ALSF) attempted to exert its influence on the (mostly left-wing) student unions of the day. Since then, state governments in Western Australia and Victoria have introduced VSU. On both occasions, the Commonwealth stepped in to provide alternative funding arrangements to ensure that student unions continued to operate.
While the Western Australian VSU banned the compulsory membership or payment of fees to a student association, it also removed the guild president as a member of the University Council and prevented compulsory fees for “any service not directly related to an education course provided by the university.” Under VSU legislation in Jeff Kennett’s Victoria, a compulsory fee was still allowed, but it was to be used only for the funding of services listed in the Act or specifically approved by the Education Minister.
Now of course, it’s a federal Liberal government pushing VSU further than ever before. And most at risk, according to Macklin, are regional campuses, many of which are used by the wider community. “But it’s true in the city as well,” she says. “Many of the suburban city universities 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.”
All of this, says the government, is irrelevant and VSU is simply about market forces. “Why is it that the everyday student who wants to go to university is required to subsidise services, including what in some cases are the most extreme political activism?” asks former Minister for Education, Brendan Nelson. Indeed, many students support the government. “A lot of students don’t feel that student organisations are relevant to them anymore,” says Rachel Hills, a recent graduate of Sydney University. “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.”
Melbourne University Science/Law students Narthana Epa and Nicholas Liau also find it difficult to see the benefit of compulsory fees. “Our fees are not being spent prudently given the outrageously high cost of joining supposedly subsidised clubs,” says Liau. With an amenities fee of almost $400, Epa says he finds it hard to imagine “anyone recouping this amount through free barbecues.” He believes the union’s main priority should be in initiatives such as offering free second-hand textbooks to disadvantaged students.
While $80 million has been set aside to help universities fill the hole created by VSU, this money is bound to be gobbled up quickly. Clubs with a sporting or recreational focus may be able to survive by charging higher fees, but areas such as welfare and student representation simply won’t have that luxury. Paying a little more to play soccer is one thing, but for a student who wants to apply for a student loan, the money will no longer be there. And though scrapping the General Services Fee will save such students money in the short-term, this is hardly the basis for good policy making, says Rick Kuhn of Australian National University. “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,” he says.
According to Democrat Senator Andrew Bartlett, it’s student apathy and disenchantment that should be addressed, not removal of student unions. “Many students do ignore student politics but this doesn’t mean the services provided by the unions are not worthwhile and should be done away with,” he says. “Nor does it mean that student politics is a basket case.”
A Roy Morgan poll published late last year showed a swing back to the Coalition, largely because VSU had ceased to be a hot issue. But if the dire predictions of Penny Wong and co are correct, students and the wider community may yet teach the government a lesson at the polling booths.
by Sukrit Sabhlok & Lefa Singleton