Having read this, I believe the anti-VSU arguement can be summed up as follows:
Without compulsory membership of student associations, it is likely that many student associations will be unable to sustain their current wide range of activities, which help turn the student body into a cohesive vibrant community rather than a collection of individuals who just want to get a degree and get out.
The benefits of these activities extend to all students, and so it is fair to expect all students to pay for them, but in an environment where this is not compulsory, it is just too hard to stop people from trying to get benefits without paying. As this occurs, more and more people will stop paying and get benefits, at which point the association goes broke.
The pro-VSU position (which I happen to support - I'm not completely happy with the current VSU proposition, but I believe that it is better than retaining compulsory student unionism regardless of this) is that:
Yes, some of the activities student associations fund are acknowledged to be of universal benefit, and all students should pay for them. But too many of the other activities conducted by the association are wasteful, and serve only the interests of a handful of students, never to be taken up by the majority.
Why should the part-time student who cannot be on campus during the day to take advantage of these services be denied their use, and instead subsidise the full-time student who chooses to skip classes to carry out these activities? (I believe this was Brendan Nelson's example, though he mentioned a single mother subsidising rugby).
Now, my proposed solution is that the conducting of these valuable activities be taken away from student associations and be placed in the hands of the university administration, with managers with appropriate experience hired to fulfil those positions. Let the funds be added to the university's funds, and let the amount of money (if any is to be charged) be added to the HECS bill.
Services that are deemed truly necessary, such as subsidised childcare, will still be retained (at heart, because the political fallout from trying to cut them would be too great), but I doubt greatly that a manager aware that his/her continued employment hinges on the ability to demonstrate genuine use of the money collected would be inclined to fund student protests.
Why am I `taking power away from students'? Because quite frankly, I don't think students have demonstrated that they have the capacity to adequately handle the funds that are being entrusted to their care, and I think genuine expertise is necessary.
Because I object to my money being used to subsidise trips away from the university that often result in a vast amount of subsidised alcohol being consumed - I accept that clubs are entitled to help their members bond, but the promotion of a drinking culture (particularly given the problems society already faces as a result of binge drinking) is something I am firmly against. (I have been on such trips and seen the effects - and for the benefit of anyone who believes my position as a result to be hypocrisy, the clubs running those activities would have been easily capable of raising the funds to subsidise the trip with or without the existence of the Guild (more on this at the end).)
Because I object to my money being used to subsidise a giant pissup that encourages activities which in many cases are outside the law and claims they are harmless pranks (aka UNSW Foundation Day - the Scavenger Hunt often involves stealing items, and whilst the Student Guild claims officially not to condone it, student publications (Tharunka in particular) frequently speak about the traditions of Foundation Day as involving outrageous activities). I believe that if students want to do that, they can damn well pay for it themselves.
Because I object to my money being used to fund political positions that I do not support, and if pressed to give an opinion on, would most likely oppose (a la campaigns in 2003 and 2004 to 'Free the Refugees'), on the grounds that the office bearers of the Guild seemed to think it was appropriate.
Because I object to my money being used to subsidise activities whose participation rates have been so low relative to the costs involved that their survival can only really be put down to tradition (Foundation Day again).
Because I object to the fact that students' money is being used to fund the excesses of a small group (Melbourne Uni Student Union - recently placed into administration, I believe - and Macquarie Uni's SAM, riddled with corruption).
Because I object to any of my money going to the National Union of Students, and to their president being considered a voice for students in Australia, when quite frankly I agree with almost none of his statements.
To those who protest that subsidised food will disappear, guess what? McDonald's at Kingsford sells meals for lower prices than individual burgers go for on the UNSW campus. There are already two private providers on campus, and with over 30,000 people a DAY on the UNSW campus, it is not hard to think that many many more would jump at the chance to get there. It would only be necessary to subsidise one or two food outlets if for example a vegetarian shop were deemed a necessity (not guaranteed by any means).
To those who claim that not all clubs can afford to carry out activities without funding - if the club's activity is considered of benefit it may still be subsidised, but there will need to be a case made regarding its benefit, rather than simply allowing clubs to claim subsidies up to certain amounts. I am not advocating the abolition of all activities, but their proper management and the elimination of those activities that are simply wasteful of students' funds.
In addition, there are always sponsorship opportunities - if universities are the pathways of elite sport, surely national sporting bodies would be prepared to spend the funds needed to keep sporting clubs running at a sustainable level? If theatre and the arts are of such essential importance (and there is no doubt a place for them), then surely the Federal and State Governments would be willing to subsidise young artists? No, the clubs that suffer will be clubs that are unwilling to stretch themselves to look at the opportunities in the wider world, but have grown accustomed to relying on handouts.
I haven't thought through all the arguements, but damn it feels good to get that off my chest anyway!!!
