Reforming student politics
So, the Howard Government is playing student politics again. The reason for their opposition to student guilds is clear — it’s harder to push regressive reforms on universities if students are organised. Rhetoric about “freedom of association” is nothing but a thin veil to hide the Government’s real goal, which is to destroy student representative organisations.
In my view, “voluntary student unionism” is code for closing down student representative bodies. On the other hand, “universal student membership” should be a goal rather than a legislated reality. If I got to set the policy in this area, these would be the main features:
-
All students would be required to pay an amenities and services fee.
-
By default, the money would go to the relevant campus student organisation.
-
Alternatively, each student could opt to pay the money to the university, which would be required to use the funds for student services.
-
Unlike the current WA model, there would be no 50% floor of funds for guilds.
-
The student organisations would have to open their books for inspection every year.
-
The maximum fee would be set by legislation at, say, $200 per year, adjusted for inflation.
-
Part-time, external and regional students would pay a lower fee according to an appropriate formula.
-
The fee, as a compulsory levy, would be added to students’ HECS bill.
I think this model strikes the right balance between freedom of association, provision of non-academic services, and the need to shield low-income students from an unfair up-front cost burden. Student guilds would be accountable for their spending, and would be in competition with the university for the right to run those services. That would improve their performance.
Unions, student and otherwise, have to get better at making the government talk their language. I’m referring to the wordings used by particpants in these debates, not the issues themselves, neccessarily. Because as these battles (in both tertiary study and IR) will be conducted in the public arena, public opinion will actually shape what the Prime Miniature and his merry moronic band will do. Never mind the Senate, there are still enough small-l liberals and marginal members in the Coalition partyroom to curb the worst excesses of Howardism if something is unpopular enough.
So I’m heartened to hear about “universal student membership” as a concept. Trying to defend universal student membership is far easier than defending “compulsory student unionsim”. See how different the the wording is, and how different the reaction to it can be?
Compulsory – nobody likes to be “compelled” into doing something. But “universal” has wonderfully inclusive tones about it, particularly when used with “membership”.
So we have to get on the front foot when talking about these things; as much as possible, we have to make the other side talk about things using our terms.
Example – “tax relief”. “Relief” is a positive word, a word with noble associations. You come to the “relief” of someone in trouble. And who would hinder that “relief”? So suddenly tax cuts for the richest 1% of a country become defensible.
So let’s make Admiral Nelson and the short man talk about why they want to remove universal student membership, rather than than why they want to allow voluntary student unionism.
(Yes, I am in PR and communications, and yes, I doo read George Lakoff and Frank Luntz). :-)
“Alternatively, each student could opt to pay the money to the university, which would be required to use the funds for student services.”
Now that I agree with. I was happy to pay for services, but if you want to take the tourbus to Woomera and protest then pay for it yourself or ask me for the money.
Of course the word from my former university is that one of the crustys on the union has scammed an Ipod on the student bill because it’s apparently the only device that record for 8 hours straight. I asked whether he had to sign it in and out of the university whenever he had to use it. Apparently not. Student politics is for the tip.
After a whole day sitting in the Victorian Superme Court today, listening to a former right-wing student union president defending his actions that some people might say defrauded thousands upon thousands from the Melbourne University SU, I can understand why people want the Unions to be accountible. However, totally banning all fees is going far too far. Some of the funds which are raised are used on stuff like PL insurance for the ovals and grounds of the union buildings that are going to have to covered by the University anyway.
This is just Nelson going overboard because he has the strange belief that Student Unions breed leftwingers which would not exist if the Unions did not exist.
I totally agree with you Robert, I’d much like to see something like this implemented state wide.
This is a tough issue. My heart supports student unionism (despite my cynicism regarding the actual student union I’m a member of). My head wishes I didn’t have to pay the $180 in first semester union fees that are due tomorrow. However, your plan sounds like a very good compromise, actually Robert, because it addresses many of my complaints;
1. Large lump-sum payments at often difficult times. Making fees part of HECS (not relevent to me as a postgrad, though) or at least allowing fortnightly direct debit would make me so much happier to pay. It’s always amused me that unions that have (rightly) fought against up-front fees have no problems charging up-front fees themselves.
2. Lower fees for external students. My sister has just started a graduate diploma in critical care nursing. She spends one day a week attending courses at the hospital that are run by the university. She rarely sets foot on the campus, and I can’t imagine her ever taking advantage of the services. But she’s still got to pay full union fees, which doesn’t seem quite fair. Nursing text-books are expensive.
3. Open students associations’ books. Very important. As I’ve already said, I’m very cynical about how my own union is run and how it spends money. I’ve been attending Adelaide University for ever, and the student association / union have been run in an amateurish and unprofessional way for as long as I can remember. The way student elections are run here makes it abundantly clear that the aim of most electees is to launch their political careers rather than to represent the student body.
4. Regarding the political activities of student unions, I don’t have a problem with a portion of my dues going to the NUS / Labor party, because after all we want student issues to be addressed, and these are the political groups who will do that. No different from chambers of commerce donating to the Liberal party. Fair game. However, despite being a rabid left-winger, (free the refugees and all that), I do find it disconcerting that some of my union dues may go towards political causes that aren’t associated with or 100% supported by tertiary students.
(Anyone else enjoy seeing Red Kerry tear the arsehole out of Nelson last night? Good times, good times.)
This is just Nelson going overboard because he has the strange belief that Student Unions breed leftwingers which would not exist if the Unions did not exist.
Very intersting listening on RN yesterday about the student union pasts of Peter Costello and Tony Abbott.
Rob, part time and external students are just as represented by their student associations as full time ones. Perhaps you can make the argument that they should pay less in ’services’ fees—if you can separate them—but you can’t be half-represented any more than you can be half-pregnant.
As to the many rorts by student associations, sure, every one should be audited out of existence. But I can think of a huge number more perpetrated by local councils, just in my state, even just in the last 24 months, and they’re not under the gun.
gjw: Neither Student Unions nor NUS fund the ALP.
Liam: The vast majority (around 90%) of student union fees goes towards services, the bulk of which are on campus. While any student may benefit from representation, it is fair enough that part-time and external students only pay half-fees, since only a small amount of the fee goes towards the political/academic advocacy.
Though Unity and NOLS were very tempted a couple of times to affiliate NUS to the Labor Party, both factions always looked over the brink and stepped back.
I’d have voted for it.
gjw: Neither Student Unions nor NUS fund the ALP.
Well, there you go. Thank you for correcting some Young Lib propaganda I was faced with at the last student elections. Mr.My-Parents-Pay-For-My-Degree-And-My-Evo-Lancer told me the union and the NUS were donating to the Labor party. I told him it didn’t bother me; they were probably getting more value for money that way than donating to the alternative.
However, when things go wrong sometimes money ends up being used for branch stacking. Or so the Court was told.
Students today protested in the streets for institutional compulsion. Bizarre. They could learn something from genuine radicals.
The ALP should take something like Robs policy and try and make a deal with the government. Perhaps even say student council’s (re: the language battle, lets drop the word union. The term Council more acuratly covers the services delivered & most people are used to paying rates) could be mandated to nut fund direct political clubs or activity. (indeed at my uni political clubs dont get any funding or assistance and we manage).
Because if Labor & the student movement just rant and block this bill until July 1, then the government will laugh and pass it in full as harsh as they like.
If they get a deal that looks decent publicly, then there is a chance that the agreement will stay and student councils can remain.
The ALP either deal now to lessen the burden but keep the basics or lose it all in one swoop in july.
I think that a compromise is out of the question. If the government is going to pursue a pointless ideological issue like this, I cannot see why it would bother compromising when it can wait and achieve its full goals.
I’m against this legislation too, f9r reasons explained at Catallaxy, but I don’t think it has much if anything to do with the politics of further higher education reform. The truth is that student organisations have been utterly ineffective in the policy debate for a very long time – certainly throughout the entire Howard government. Their protests are small, and often end in negative publicity after vandalism of property and physical conflict with police and/or Liberal students. They just are not a political force governments needs worry about. I think it has far more to do with the long-standing frustrations of generations of Liberal student activists.
Happy to pay fees for student services (and most of union fees do go to the basics, one assumes).
It’s about time we did see the end of our funds going to pay for people to attend NUS, NOWSA or whatever.
People can pay to attend them out of their own funds.
Sorry guys but I think this is a fantastic reform and has been long overdue. We’d already be enjoying the freedom of either belonging or not only for the hostile Senate we’ve had for the last eight years.
Robert, as a Leftie, it is understandable that you’d be annoyed about this but there is no justification for forcing people to fund left wing (or even right wing) organisations for any reason. In the eyes of supporters of compulsory unionism there is no right for people to have the choice. I don’t know how many people here will comprehend this but alot of people visit universities to get an education. Those who dress like dishevelled rats and behave like bloody fools at student rallies, often breaking more laws than they care to think about, seem to be, thankfully, becoming more of a minority.
If it isn’t state Labor governments putting TAFE education out of reach by raising fees at hundreds of times the CPI then it is The Left continuing to wave the flag for the unreasonable restriction of compulsory unionism. It’s time to put the Southern Cross out to pasture mate :-)
The reality is that student unions are really university service providers.
At Melbourne University, less than one third of funding goes towards representation– which specifically means funding for union departments. Most of that funding goes towards student grants, clubs and societies, or the activities department.
A small amount of money funds the political activities of the office bearers, such as Queer, Women’s, Welfare or Education; part of this (an extremely small part at most unions) goes towards honorariums for office bearers.
An argument could be made that payment should not be made for these political activities. However, like student services, all students benefit from the representation (such as better conditions and rights won by student reps on university committees or councils), whether they are aware of it (or take it up) or not.
Wow, sad im so late to add to this, but hey, better late than never.
I agree mostly with your proposal for the most part Rob, but I think that a few bits of it are unworkable. The ‘floor’ of a minimum of 50% is a very important part of the current WA legislation… It ensures that the majority of student money paid in the form of Amenities fees, is *STUDENT CONTROLLED* this is a fundamental plank in the whole notion of universal student unionism. Otherwise its not universal student unionism, its universal payment of money to ‘university admin crap art comissioning fund’ The majority of any money contributed by students must always be controlled by elected student representatives.
Also, with legislating the fee to be paid…. This is SOOOOOOOOooooooooooooo cumbersome and badness. If you had to change the fee via an act of parliament everytime you wanted to raise it according to CPI, or lower it for some reason, then it would be almost impossible to do so.
All of this however, is hinged on the idea that student organisations are transparent, accountable, and law abiding. Unfortunaltely, the actions of a few (edith cowan, maquarie, and melbourne uni student unions) have tainted the reputation of the many many, excellent student organisations out there.
Just my 2 cents.
PS And Mr Alex White, if you think that all student unions are about is to provide services that would otherwise have to be provided by the university, you dont belong in the Australian Labor Students.
Student Unions are about representing the interests of students,and fighting for student rights both within the university environment (ie on uni council, university boards and committees etc) and the broader community. This includes things such as lobbying for a fair student living allowance, and working for a fair, equitable and accessable education system in Australia, making sure that women students that are more than likely on a limted wage can access abortion if they require it, and all the other bizillions of things that student unions do. Political activities of student unions, and service provision cant be separated, they are both equally importmant. But im sure you know all that, right Alex????
Ali: Re-read the final paragraph of my previous comment.