Content
The VSU Debate Rages
3 September 2005
The debate will soon commence on the Abolition of Compulsory
Up-front Student Union Fees Bill, 2005, first in the House of
Representatives and then in the Senate.
The topic is still exciting a nationwide debate and there is a
strong polarisation of views, although recently there seems to be
an increasing number of people hoping for a compromise.
Whilst compulsory Guild membership is anathema to many people,
as is the sponsorship of student political activity, the majority
of activities supported by the Guild at USC are going to be missed
by many students, unless other provisions are made for such
services.
Entertainment, insurance, loans, skills advising, vending
machines, 24-hour access room, lockers, TV, photocopying, parking
and 'O' week are amongst the many activities supported currently by
the USC Student Guild.
If the University decides to help, the shape of the eventual
legislation will be important in determining how much legal scope
we have to do so. Monies may have to be diverted from other key
areas of the University's operation, or students may have to
consider more commercial purchasing of alternatives for some of
these previously sponsored or subsidised services.
The Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee (AVCC), of which I am
a member, has this week restated its opposition to the legislation
in its current form as it believes it will adversely affect
university services and student life and opportunities. The AVCC is
seeking six amendments which revolve around universities being
allowed to charge a 'student services and amenities fee'.
The AVCC believes, firstly, that membership of student
organisations should be voluntary.
Secondly, it ought to be possible for a university to charge a
pro-rata fee, depending on students' mode of study, so that
part-time students, for example, would pay less.
Thirdly, the charge would be applied to the most important
aspects of university life, for example, health, welfare, dental,
sporting, cultural and specific international services, but not
political activity.
Fourthly, the charge would contribute to the cost of
representative and advocacy functions that benefit students as a
whole.
Fifthly, the AVCC believes that the University should not be
disallowed collecting the money as a condition of enrolment.
Finally, the University would be responsible for the effective
use of those funds through direct provision or contracting them to
another body.
This was the kind of compromise discussed last year, at the
earliest stage of discussion of VSU, but this year the debate has
been about VSU, unadulterated in any way, and has therefore
provoked a polarisation of views that are going to be difficult but
not impossible to reconcile.
The polar views are driven by different views of the world. VSU
in its present form is about individuality and choice, and the
personal freedoms that some believe need to be exercised in a true
democracy.
Those who hold the contrary view believe that civil society is
also about sharing, the support by the strong of the weak, a sense
of community, and a variant of a tax system in universities may
have some benefit.
Both viewpoints have their strengths and weaknesses and over
centuries there have been different political interpretations of
how to create the 'good society', either within society as a whole,
or within a university environment.
Politicians, students and the community are deeply divided but
there is unanimity amongst university vice-chancellors that campus
services will undoubtedly suffer across the country unless a
compromise is struck.
Professor Paul Thomas is Vice-Chancellor of University of
the Sunshine Coast