Not yet registered?Sign upLogin

Should we Tax Students

Posted by Senator Steve Fielding on March 04 2009  |  125 Comments

Families are doing it tough at the moment.  Especially those who have to support their loved ones in full-time or part-time education.  The Rudd government is proposing to reintroduce a compulsory student amenities fee that must be paid even if the student has no intention of using any of the services being offered.

I am extremely reluctant to impose a compulsory tax upon these students and their families, but want to hear your opinions about it. 

Please comment below and let me know if you think we should make this student tax compulsory again.

Comments

• Words cannot express how delusional you are when it comes to this issue. You’ve missed the point so far that it would actually be hilarious, if not for how much damage you’ve done to services that support students like myself. Start praying for a double dissolution, Fielding, because it’s the only chance you’ve got to retain your seat.

  Comment by Nalinth on 22 August 2009 at 05:39:14 PM

• PS, Thankyou Steve for knocking back this tax.

  Comment by al_b on 19 August 2009 at 12:01:05 AM

• Hi “luke” (cough)

  Isn’t it strange how women at university need their own room so badly - yet women at high schools, businesses, TAFEs, etc don’t?

  As far as I’m concerned, if you want your own room, great. Just please don’t raid my pockets to pay for it.

  By the way, I didn’t insult you - please return the favor.

  Comment by al_b on 19 August 2009 at 12:00:14 AM

• Why do we need a womens room? Are you being serious??? Umm perhaps for women who have been raped or abused by men and who need a refuge!!!! Ever think of that? And by the way, before you make another stupid comment - why dont you look at the facts of inequality of women in todays society and the increase in violence against women (by men) and hopefully your small mind will register why there is a huge need for a womens room.

  Comment by luke on 18 August 2009 at 10:10:06 PM

• Hi Nikki,

  Can I ask, why do you need a ‘Woman’s Room’ just to nuke your lunch and surf the net? What about the other 50% of students, I’m sure guys like the occasional hot lunch and internet access as well.

  As for loans and medical expenses, aren’t there already resources in place in the wider community for low income earners? Why are students so special that they need to duplicate these facilities?

  I remember taking a look at my unions financial records. You’d be surprised at how little was actually spent on useful services.

  I’m sure I used some services the union provided - but no way would I have used $250 worth. More like $25.

  Comment by al_b on 18 August 2009 at 01:06:38 PM

• Dear Senator Fielding

  I do not know if you will get this in time, I hope it is not too late.

  As a female student at University, I find it more difficult than my male colleagues to support myself as a student. Proven facts show that women still do not earn as much as men, and take much longer time to pay off their HECS debt than males.
  As a student, I need student support. I need a women’s room where I can heat my left overs for lunch, a place where I can use free internet access; I need the medical centre which offers free appointments for students; I need the availability of a student loan; I need the help of buying cheaper books for my studies! All of these vital services come from student taxes.

  It is not a burden for students to pay this. I do not know one person who does not use some sort of student service to help them get by.

  I urge you to vote in support of the $250 student tax, as along with a lot of my other colleagues, there is a high chance I will not be able to attend university without it!

  Kind Regards

  N

  Comment by nikki on 18 August 2009 at 02:41:58 AM

• Signed up after reading about this blog on news.com.au. Having been a student both before and after VSU, I can say it was a great thing. Thankyou for standing up to the ALP and helping block this regressive tax.

  The problem with compulsory student union fees, is that the union gets income no matter how well they preform. Unions got lazy and spent money on all kinds of useless things - realistically, when you give inexperienced twenty year-olds multi-million dollar budgets, what do you expect?

  When VSU came in, my old university union realised that suddenly, they had to be relevant to survive. They opened new and better food places (with actual tasty food!), improved the bookstore etc. This would never have happened under compulsory student unionism.

  Comment by al_b on 17 August 2009 at 10:42:39 PM

• I always marvel at people who claim they don’t use any of the services provided by student associations, and even more so at those who claim such services are predominantly social. Let’s run a case study, just for the sake of it - let’s have a look at my own student association, at Monash.

  There are two supposedly “social” services run by the MSA. One is the Activities Department, the other Clubs and Societies. Let’s start with Activities. Social? Undeniably. A waste of students’ money? Literally not logically possible - it’s required to break even by MSA policy, and does so. Now, that’s not true of every student association - but it’s a fairly widespread practice, and one that students at other universities could easily insist on implementing.

  Let’s then look at Clubs and Societies. Firstly, it’s questionable as to whether they’re even a “social” service in the first place - of 99 clubs, 36 are academic (some of those, admittedly, have large social functions, but all of those clubs provide direct support to their constituents in the form of Careers Guides, student tutorial programs, orientation programs, and so on, and those programs generally form the majority of their expenditure); 9 focus on spiritual support for students; 19 are cultural clubs that provide much-needed support for international students; and many of the remainder are special interest clubs like the Association of Debaters or the Philharmonic Society, that certainly can’t be dismissed as social. But even if it was true that they were all social clubs pouring money into beer and barbecues, they’re funded proportional to the number of confirmed members they have, and there are very strict limits on how much of that funding can be spent on social activities (from memory, the maximum that can be spent is $1,500, and the club needs to have over 300 members to be in that bracket - although, I haven’t had cause to read the regulations for a while, and I might be wrong on the exact figures). It’s just simply not true that the majority of students’ money gets spent on social activities. And ironically, reductions in funding tend to kill off the smaller support-service clubs first, since the social clubs tend to be large enough to adjust to the loss of funding.

  So where does it actually go, then? It goes to paying people to spend their time convincing the University to change policies so that they’re better for students. It goes to paying people to provide advice (often legal) to students experiencing problems with the University. It goes to running support services for international students, religious students, students from minority groups, students with disabilities, students who are ill and so on. It goes to running services like childcare. It goes to running businesses that provide cheaper food on campus and in turn drive down the cost of food at other campus outlets through competition (and tend to run at a profit, anyway).

  Frankly, I’d challenge anyone to honestly look me in the eye and tell me that in all their time at University they never used SWOTvac, never benefited from student support services like Student Rights, never joined a club, never sought Special Consideration, never benefited from lower food prices on campus, never bought books secondhand, never attended social events, or benefited from any of the other myriad things that student associations offer. And even if someone could - I know of only one student association in the country that doesn’t hold elections open to all students, and they’re currently in university administration after financial collapse and plan to start holding elections next year. If students keep voting for student associations that support (very openly) universal student unionism (and I know of only one student association that doesn’t), that’s a pretty heavy vote of confidence in these kinds of policies. More importantly, it’s extremely rare for groups like the Liberals not to run candidates - who year after year get trounced on platforms of support for VSU. At the end of the day, students want support and representation - and they’re happy to pay for it.

  Comment by Madeline on 19 July 2009 at 09:28:50 PM

• Thank you for standing up against these extortionate fees. Having been a university student when these fees were compulsory I had the pleasure of watching my money being used predominantly by ‘social clubs’  to fund booze-ups which I had no interest in.
  I never used one of the services I was forced to pay for.

  Comment by hankscorpio on 14 July 2009 at 09:41:03 PM

• From reading some of the entries, there are issues that students have with their guilds, particularly their own lack of input - They say they are paying for services which they do not need - that means the problem really is where and how the money is being spent, are you conceeding that the unions have a strangehold over our campuses - the issue then is how the money is being spent, not that there is money to assist students.

  In terms of the payment being unessary to for many students - At university if you study physics, then you don’t need to pay the language teachers.  Without language teachers, there are no universities and thus no physics teachers.  You are supporty an entire insitution and the fee structure should reflect this.  Without some students, the nature of university changes, and education may become increasingly unattainable.  Since we are part of a whole, we need consider that our own non participation allows us a vote, a democratic voice in a democracy - rather than abstaining as Voluntary Student Unionism permits, we need to participate in the democratic process of our University - if not, then you’re not opposing the so called socialist left wing - you’re ignoring the democratic process.

  According to your theories, I should not pay taxes, I am not the Prime Minister of Australia and do not therefore need accomodation at the lodge.  I am also not a pensioner, or a native Australian or a single mother - let’s move on from democracy, it obviously doesn’t realise I need a new ferrari.  Somehow we create sanctions for those who need it and will potentially need assistance, it is how our society develops and advances human rights.

  I am a student though…can I get a break? Essential student services like employment services, help with accomodation, student poverty including financial assistance are problems anyone can face - your exemption and lack of requirement is fortune - not every Australian can say the same, I’m one of them.

  Comment by AllyNeeds on 21 May 2009 at 06:16:46 PM

• Onion
  From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  Jump to: navigation, search
  For other uses, see Onion (disambiguation).
  “Onions” redirects here. For the surname, see Onions (surname).
  Onion

  
  Onions
  Scientific classification
  Kingdom: Plantae
  (unranked): Angiosperms
  (unranked): Monocots
  Order: Asparagales
  Family: Alliaceae
  Genus: Allium
  Species: A. cepa
  
  Binomial name
  Allium cepa
  L.
  Onion is a term used for many plants in the genus Allium. They are known by the common name “onion” but, used without qualifiers, it usually refers to Allium cepa. Allium cepa is also known as the ‘garden onion’ or ‘bulb’ onion.

  Allium cepa is known only in cultivation,[1] but related wild species occur in Central Asia. The most closely-related species include Allium vavilovii Popov & Vved. and Allium asarense R.M. Fritsch & Matin from Iran.[2] However Zohary and Hopf warn that “there are doubts whether the vavilovii collections tested represent genuine wild material or only feral derivatives of the crop.”[3].

  Contents [hide]
  1 Uses
  2 Historical uses
  3 Medicinal properties and health effects
  4 Onions and eye irritation
  5 Propagation
  6 Varieties
  7 Production trends
  8 Onions in language
  9 Pictures
  10 Notes
  11 References
  12 See also
  13 External links
  

  
  [edit] Uses
  Onions, one of the oldest vegetables known to humankind, are found in a large number of recipes and preparations spanning almost the totality of the world’s cultures. They are nowadays available in fresh, frozen, canned, pickled, powdered, chopped, and dehydrated forms. Onions can be used, usually chopped or sliced, in almost every type of food including cooked foods and fresh salads and as a spicy garnish. They are rarely eaten on their own but usually act as accompaniment to the main course. Depending on the variety, an onion can be sharp, spicy, tangy and pungent or mild and sweet.

  Onions pickled in vinegar are eaten as a snack. These are often served as a side serving in fish and chip shops throughout the United Kingdom and are referred to simply as “Pickled Onions”. Onions are widely-used in India / Pakistan and are fundamental in the local cuisine. They are commonly used as a base for curries or made into a paste and eaten as a main course or as a side dish. Onion is called “Pyaaz” (प्याज़)in Hindi, “Erulli/Ulla gaddi” in Kannada “ulli paya” (ఉల్లిపాయ) or “Erra gadda” (ఎర్ర గడ్డ) in Telugu and “Kanda” in Marathi.

  Tissue from onions is frequently used in science education to demonstrate microscope usage, because they have particularly large cells which are readily observed even at low magnifications.[4]

  
  [edit] Historical uses
  It is thought that bulbs from the onion family have been used as a food source for millennia. In Bronze Age settlements, traces of onion remains were found alongside fig and date stones dating back to 5000 BC.[5]

  However, it is not clear if these were cultivated onions. Archaeological and literary evidence such as the Book of Numbers 11:5 suggests cultivation probably took place around two thousand years later in ancient Egypt, at the same time that leeks and garlic were cultivated. Workers who built the Egyptian pyramids may have been fed radishes and onions.[5]

  Comment by Laur Farren on 21 May 2009 at 02:26:20 PM

• Please remember one very important principle that our nation was built on:

  FREEDOM OF CHOICE

  Students deserve the freedom to choose where to spend their very scarce funds, to choose which doctor to visit, where to eat, which sporting teams to play for - indeed which university to attend. They should be able to choose whether they’d like to support a student union. A compulsory fee essentially forces students to use the on-campus facilities, because hey, they’ve had to fork out for them. Regardless of whether they’re an externally studying student or not.

  Australian students have a right to freedom of choice as much as anyone else.

  Steve, please don’t take that right away.

  Comment by Cam_Sinclair on 11 May 2009 at 12:32:57 PM

• There’s been a lot of concern here that this is somehow unfair because it’s a flat-rate payment. Firstly, what else is the GST? It certainly doesn’t take into account the earning capacity of those paying it - a five-year-old pays the same GST on a chocolate bar as I do, or as Rupert Murdoch does.

  Why is this relevant? Because if this is a tax - which I still don’t buy that it is - then it’s a tax on a set of services, calculated in the flat-tax form of the GST and collected in the same way as an income tax. It’s not shocking, or radical - it’s something that was done successfully for many years to ensure that students had access to basic services necessary to complete their degrees.

  The reality is, what’s being proposed is a far softer model than what used to exist. And it’s going to fail on providing a lot of things as a result - but the good thing about it is that it’s not going to be a barrier to impoverished students. In comparison to HECS debt, $250 a year is nothing.

  Comment by Madeline on 25 April 2009 at 03:08:44 PM

• Dear Steve

  Unfortunately real student interests were put aside by the last Government when they attacked student service associations (not in any way involved in many campus with student unions).  A silly move was made by a lot of ex student politicians then in parliament; which ended up costing students their basic services; canteens, sporting competitions and kindergatens to name a few services affected. Someone has to pay and these services and these associations worked well for years. Please help bring them back to what they were, and ignore all tose wanabe student politicians who don’t get it.

  Let there be two fee structures one for full time and one for part time students (like I was) to solve any unfairness.

  Thanking You

  Comment by William Wallace on 20 April 2009 at 10:03:34 PM

• It may be all very well for the more affluent students and their parents to be able to afford these fees but what about us battlers. I was only able to rescue my daughter from her abusing and neglecting mother at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars, borrowed money that i didnt have ,while the abusing mother got all the free legal aid.In the ensuing years i have been able to take my daughter from the class for SLOW kids she was in when she came into my care to being on a list for a class for GIFTED AND TALENTED kids and finally now doing an honours degree in psychology at flinders university in adelaide where she is achieving credits and distinctions. I only come from a humble working class background and my daughter is the first in our family to aspire to a university education. We are doing it hard enough now as i live in the country and my daughter has had to move to the city with all the attendant extra costs. It is lucky she has been able to gain a small scholarship and some relatively cheap accommodation otherwise she would be unable to even go to university despite the enormous amount of effort she has put in to better herself.The enormous cost of rescuing her in the first place thanks to a biased and anti father family law system has ensured that i am unable to help her much financially.
    Mr Fielding, i hope you live up to your parties name, put the family first, and stop this compulsory payment dead in its tracks, or at least ensure its implementation is paired with a REALISTIC means test. My daughter has worked too hard too fall at the last jump because of this increased financial impost. I thought the labour party was supposed to stand up for the battlers.

  Comment by dave the slave on 16 April 2009 at 05:59:29 PM

• Two points worth making from the comments to date:
  1. There is a lot of support for the facilities provided by student unions.
  2. The political associations of student unions clearly create concerns.

  Simple solution: Compulsory student union fees should be levied, but must be administered by a non-political organisation which must only fund student facilities (Though I would question the levying of fees on external students who never attend on campus and therefore have no opportunity to use the facilities)!

  If students want a political organisation, that could be arranged independently, with voluntary membership, as per political parties in the wider community!

  Comment by sirron on 11 April 2009 at 09:00:55 PM

• Alright, let’s deal with this “just make students pay for the services” junk.

  Do we charge citizens for every kilometre of road they drive on? Do we charge them individualised bills for the benefit they derive from financial regulation? Do we send them bills for the costs of running the criminal justice system determined on a basis of how much it is presumed to have protected that individual?

  No. Why?

  Because it’s impossible.

  The same is true of a lot of the services student associations offer. Every student benefits from SWOTvac - should we send them a bill? Every student benefits from student representatives on University Council, Academic Board, Faculty Boards, and so on - should we send them a bill?

  Moreover, the cost of individualised bills and the staff members necessary to administer them would drive up the cost of many of these services.

  The reality is that the easiest way to fund these services is to have an upfront fee (or a deferred one) for the services that can’t be charged for on a per-use basis. For things like food outlets, short courses, childcare, etc - yeah, sure we can charge on a per use basis and most student associations do. But it’s those representative services and guarantees of student rights that can’t survive without that fee.

  The second category of things that that fee can go to is subsidisation of other services - like clubs, childcare and welfare services. Most students will use at least one of these, but often can’t afford the full cost of use. A deferred fee means that the immediate cost to the student can be easily and efficiently defrayed while maintaining the quality of the service.

  Essentially, unless you’d advocate swapping to toll gates at every corner of public road, it’s naive to suggest that student associations operate on the same basis.

  Comment by Madeline on 09 April 2009 at 08:15:32 PM

• Mr Fielding,

  You made a very big mistake voting with Howard getting rid of VSU. Now it is up to Labor to get it back again, and your chance to redeem yourself, if you really stand for the family first?

  This is a collective policy that helps every student. As a uni student myself I do not mind paying it, even though I may not use all the services that the VSU directly provides.  I know it goes to helping less priviledged students in the country centres that really need the services that the VSU provides.

  As for Howard, he hated every thing that did not sit with his individualistic ideology/philosophy along with his ideology on self-regulated free market system, is why we are in this global financial mess.

  Comment by Peter Meyer on 03 April 2009 at 06:26:48 PM

• First, such fees are NOT A TAX.
  Second, my 3 children had to move away from our country town to study and qualify in Sydney at 3 different campuses. I know that students may unexpectedly need the medical service, including mental health, that are provided though Student Representative Councils as well as sporting teams etc.

  Comment by Romero on 01 April 2009 at 01:56:45 PM

• I am concerned that this question was asked in such a biased way. As a person who has often been a student and who has worked in universities for 20 years, I do not agree with payment of student services fees being optional - they are NOT A TAX.

  Student ervice fees provide for a wide range of services as well as the traditional clubs. Life in universities is supposed to provide experiences other than study. Relaxation is important to study. Some services such as cafeterias may seem more important than others, but who knows when you might the need a student services doctor, especially as a young student away from home for the first time.

  The services need to planned, funded and staffed. This is not possible if everbody says they won’t pay because they will hardly use them.  It is logical to suggest differential rates for full-time, and part-time and perhaps external students should not have to pay unless they attend summer schools.

  The bogey of ALP domination is strange since Student Representative Council (the word ‘Union’ is a wrongly understood carry over from English Universities, and does not mean a labor union) have to hold democratic elections which should include all parties, and Independents. Money handling by students should be regulated by the universities.

  there is too much information !  How long will it take to set the record straight ?

  Meadow
  1.4.2009

  Comment by Meadow on 01 April 2009 at 02:19:02 AM

• Every business operates with fixed costs (rent etc) and variable costs. Increase service fees to cover the fixed costs is a braod economic strategy. If student unions are providoing services that are not needed then abandon them and if they are providing services people want then charge for them or go broke!

  ACCOUNTING 101 really!

  Comment by Taxed enough! on 31 March 2009 at 01:22:20 PM

• I am a single male; I pay the highest tax rate with no deductions ever. I see this as unfair.However, life sometimes is unfair. I was lucky in that I was given a free tertiary education and paid student fees, even though I never made use of them. But that is not the point. Some students need students servcies whereas I did not. I also did not mind paying these student fees even though others made use of them.We cannot and must not equate single issues based soley on what our own needs are. We need to look at the bigger picture and see that others can benefit from our contributions even if we do not.

  Comment by Jeff on 31 March 2009 at 12:53:26 PM

• Madeline ...$6 an hour?  Perhap we need to get the new bother boys around to go through the Student Union records.  Oh ...no that only applies to small business,  unions are free to rip their staff off.

  Live by an idealogy ...die by an idealogy I say.

  Carla ..The student unions should have thought about all this before they decided to become a political animal.  You either provide services or you promote a political idealogy ...you can’t do both without membership becoming optional.

  We all know that the new fees are simply a way for money to be clawed from others to support a political agenda.  Mommy and Daddy Labor are doing their part to see that Student Guilds have money on tap even if it is by stealth.  But hey ...gotta look after your own as they say

  Comment by Kimbo on 20 March 2009 at 08:46:39 PM

• Also, Kimbo, may I note that those student unionists you’re pillorying are being paid about $6 an hour at most student unions, if they’re being paid at all. And also that most of them are doing two-three times as much work as they’re paid for. And that most student unions survive on massive amounts of volunteer work from students.

  Frankly, if we cared about money, we’d be working somewhere that paid. The reason we think that money needs to be available is because it’s the only way we can see to provide the services that students use on campus. Things like SWOTvac, free parking, cheap (or, at least, non-extortionate) food and student rights services don’t come out of nowhere.

  Comment by Madeline on 20 March 2009 at 11:12:25 AM

• Kimbo, the relevant question is not about being forced to join the Liberal Party. A more accurate analogy is being forced to be a part of Australia.

  I don’t have a choice about whether I’m a constituent of the Australian government - I’ve been made a “member” against my will. When I buy things, when I earn money, they take part of that and spend it on the things that the (currently Labor) government wants to have happen. That doesn’t make me a part of the Labor party.

  Nor does it mean that when Howard was in charge that I was in agreement with how he was supposedly “representing” me. That’s why when I was old enough to vote, I didn’t vote for the Liberals.

  In the same way, a student being a member of a student organisation (or, more accurate to the current state of this bill, paying a fee for the provision of things like parking on campus) doesn’t mean that they’re a member of the group running it. They can go and vote for the Liberals at the next student election. But whoever students want to represent them, both that representation and those services are necessary. And to make a point - I’d be saying exactly the same things if the Liberals were in charge of every student union in the country. Can those opposing the amenities fee say the same?

  Comment by Madeline on 20 March 2009 at 11:08:46 AM

• Having read through this blog it is quite evident that there are only 2 types of people that want compulsory student fees.  Those that are part of the union naturally want more resources so they can practise their mini form of socialism and satisfy political ambition. 

  Then there are those that are rolling up their sleeves like Fat Kev at the rissole clubs all you can eat night.

  Once upon a time people used to make their own plans and provide for themselves.  These days there is no shame, people are quite happy to get their snouts in the trough at other peoples expense.

  If you don’t have enough money to go to Uni then get a part time job.  If you have children then accept that this is your mistake and others shouldn’t have to pick up the tab for your lack of planning.

  Comment by Kimbo on 20 March 2009 at 03:27:53 AM

• There is much talk about greed in today society.  VSU opponents demonstrate that some are happy to sponge off others who don’t want or need the services/representation.

  Cayla ...how would you like to be forced to join the Liberal party as a condition of employment?  Naturally you wouldn’t because you would be providing financial support to an idealogy that you don’t agree with.  The same applies with student guilds, no one should be forced to join anything. 

  Like all clubs, unions and guilds they have to be relevant to their members.  Student guilds showed that they were nothing but an extension of the Labor party and as such compulsory membership is wrong.

  Comment by Kimbo on 20 March 2009 at 02:53:10 AM

• My granddaughter go to uni and she works at night to pay her fees buy her books and other things she needs ,why should she be forced to pay for what she do not want or need , she doesn’t have time to socialize , she always so tied dont let this go ahead , students who study hard and want to get ahead are going to be penalized for the benefit of a few

  Comment by Den on 19 March 2009 at 11:52:57 PM

• I see many references to services in this debate, however few to representation.

  How can we have user pays representation?

  Senator Fielding, how could you represent Victorians in the highest halls of our Government if only the people who voted for you payed a fee for you to represent them.

  Would you be able to carry out your responsibilities as a senator?

  Would Victorians be better off if this was the case?

  Would any individual be better off?

  Senator, think about all the hours of passion and commitment that you put into your role. Think about all time and resources it takes you to achieve what you have and represent the interests of Victorians.

  Please ask yourself, could you do this if only the people who voted for you paid?

  Would that be fair?

  The debate about VSU runs deeper than services, and further than the life of a HECS debt.

  VSU hasnt just taken away our clubs and our sports stadiums and our student media. VSU has also made representation exclusionist, only for those who are able to doll out cash can have a voice in our Universities. I dont think that makes anyone more free.

  Surely Senator, that is not your vision for our future.

  Comment by Cayla on 19 March 2009 at 09:03:56 PM

• Please vote against this bill.  If people want services they will pay for them.  Don’t force all people to pay because it will force the lower income people out.

  Comment by Robert H on 19 March 2009 at 09:55:09 AM

• Actually, Ozziejack, there is a marked difference between government taxes, and the compulsory fee that is being levied on services.

  The compulsory fee is effectively a poll tax.  It is levied regardless of income, or a student’s capacity to use the services that the fee contributes to - which, by the way, will include political activity.

  Now, the difference between a student union and a government is pretty simple: a government has sovereignty over a land and its people. A student union does not.  Governments have the exclusive right to levy taxes; student unions do not.

  As for your claim about HECS being a tax, this is simply not true.  HECS is a fee levied for which a student is able to obtain direct benefit from.  The primary, and in many cases sole reason a student attends university is to obtain academic qualifications.  By paying HECS, a student is paying for such qualifications.

  On the flip side, a student can be paying a regressive tax to an organisation it chooses not to join, yet obtaining absolutely no benefit out of it.

  By compelling students to pay a fee for services they would not otherwise use, one can only say that what Labor is proposing is a tax on students to fund the political careers of their mates in student unions.

  Comment by ALSF on 16 March 2009 at 11:01:05 PM

• Much is made of students not using many of the services available by student unions. Well as a taxpayer for the past 40 years I can tell you that I don’t use more than 2% of the services made available but taxes do make a better Australia. When I compare when I went to uni and paid student union fees and nowadays when my son goes to uni and does not - what he gets is pitiful compared with what was available to me both in quantity and quality.

  To be perfectly honest, it is HECS that is the biggest tax on students.  We are constantly told that kids are our biggest resource and yet we stop many thousands of them attending uni because they just can’t afford to rack up bill which will cripple them for years once they start work.  If they are our greatest resource then why are we taxing them?  Govts can find millions of dollars to support and prop up industry but we tax our kids - does that really make sense?

  Comment by Ozziejack on 14 March 2009 at 05:13:10 AM

• The mentality that all university related living costs should be deferred until one has graduated is not healthy… If we start deferring books, club fees and parking, what’s next? Food, clothes and housing? Before we know it - students will graduate owing the equivalent of a house mortgage before they even start work. It’s this attitude of worry about the future when we get there that is the cause of much of the financial turmoil we’re currently in. Who do you think pays for all these HECS debts? It’s sure as hell not the universities - that’s right it’s the Australian tax payer. Paying year after year of indexed interest on students who haven’t a clue about the true value of working for a dollar.

  As Prime Minister Rudd has said in the past - the current student debt levels in this country are shameful. And yet he’s quite happy to add to them.

  Comment by Cam_Sinclair on 12 March 2009 at 04:47:20 PM

• I think the govt should be doing something about reducing HECS. I’m 47 and studying at uni part time and work part time as due to some health problems I needed to do this to remain competitive in the workforce (my health prevents me from working the zillions of hours overtime required in so many jobs affecting my ability to progress) so will come out with a $30K debt at a time I need to be building on my super.
  Students also get the worst allowances and income support in the nation. If one is unemployed and chooses to study the Austudy allowance (if you are eligible) pays around 65% of newstart when it should be at least equal. The unemployed are doing a positive thing returning to study and it’s particularly important for those unemployed who have an injury or health condition.

  Comment by dj on 11 March 2009 at 05:16:33 PM

• In addition to all the below reasoning, the fact is this tax (if people insist on calling it as such) is being charged anyway, but in a much more unfair, and less transparent manner.

  Taking the example of Monash Clayton, parking fees have risen from $83 pre-VSU, to $320, which a great deal of students are forced to buy due to the poor public transport in Clayton. 

  The difference is, this parking fee is levied up front, as opposed to the ALP proposal to have this money deferred under SA-HELP.

  Prior to VSU, the amenities fees had to be distributed in a transparent manner via Campus Service Councils, whereas under the status quo the university simply takes the revenue and distributes however it sees fit.

  Please return campuses to a situation where this money is collected more equitably, and distributed more transparently.

  Comment by Julian Campbell on 11 March 2009 at 12:55:57 PM

• Hi Senator.

  In response to your question - is there an amount that every student would be happy to be taxed?

  I think so long as the amount is reasonable and based on what was charged in the past, the majority of students will not have an issue with it. The amount also doesn’t matter as much as it might have in the past due to the ability to defer the payment until later on.

  Therefore, any ‘hardship’ that people may claim will be suffered by students during the current econonic crisis is lagrely irrelevant.

  Monique

  Comment by monique on 11 March 2009 at 10:22:22 AM

• If students are willing to fund these services then they can - voluntarily. The issue is that when VSU came in, students didnt want to pay Union fees that supposedly provided so much.

  My campus is separate to the main campus of the university, and the university funds all the services that i need without me having to pay anything. That was one of the reasons I chose that university in the first place. All the social events are run by clubs that I chose to join (without joining the student guild) and they run all the support/campus culture that i need.

  This money would be a complete waste, as i am more than willing to pay for services that I use and not for others I do not want.

  If the government were serious about students they wouldnt make THEM pay for it. This is a massive cop out to all students, especially those who voted for Rudd at the last election, when they promised NOT to introduce a fee for all students.

  Please dont vote for this, it is unfair, wasted, and will be used to fund student politicians’ future careers!

  Comment by nicks on 10 March 2009 at 10:31:41 PM

• Dear Senator,

  I was a student rep. for 2007-2008 for a student union, and while this may colour my view, the work that they do is worth far more than $250. You could look at this in two ways. How much does it cost to build a community (which is the central aspect of many of the activities)? Or if student unions are not there what is lost?

  In terms of community, how much value do we put on making connections with others through student union activities like clubs and societies, student run restaurants, events, sports teams and facilities? That these connections last for the rest of many peoples lives is only the starting point, but the fact that it means that many of students feel that they are not isolated is ever so important.

  In terms of how do we replace the key services and assistance that are lost? Student unions run on shoestring budgets, providing services that the university would often need to provide anyway – but at a much lower cost than the University could. Think about a community setting up a project versus a university administration. The university administration focuses on minimising costs while providing the minimal service it perceives it is required to provide. The community focuses on maximising the services that the community requires, not on what others perceive they require, within the available budget.

  What is not taken into account is volunteer hours. Go to a campus like Monash Clayton, which is ten minutes from your office, on a typical Monday night and 70 people will be at a regular debating club event, 150 people will be attending free food mondays, a free meal for people who cannot afford regular meals, as part of the welfare department (which is just one of the programs that is run as part of a department that receives under $20K in their total budget per year, including staffing), a choir will be singing, and fire twirlers and jugglers will be practicing. All of these are run on the hard work of volunteers. The volunteers also make decisions on the small budgets and grants that they receive. At the same time, Office Bearers of the association are sitting on University committees, planning services and planning campaigns to improve the lives of students, not always campaigns that you will believe in, but campaigns from students and by students.

  The student fees are important, that they are compulsory reflects that all students benefit from having food, sports and recreation centres and a vibrant social life on campus. The argument most often used against this is that not all people use these services. To respond: just like I don’t ‘use’ the military or primary/high school education I still pay for it in my taxes, because the overall benefit of providing these services in common outweighs the individual costs-just like the services provided by student unions.

  My thanks, Mat.

  Comment by mat on 10 March 2009 at 03:29:37 PM

• On a side note, I’ll comment that the vigorous yellers on this blog should consider their relation to student funds at the moment. For instance, the Liberal Club at Monash accepts Clubs and Societies funding - drawn directly from student money granted by the university. How many students use those services? Perhaps if you want to oppose “taxes” on students, you should give up the funds you get from those “taxes” first.

  Mr Fielding, I’d urge you to look at what students are saying. Year after year, students elect tickets that openly campaign against VSU. Year after year, students elect tickets that run on platforms of increased funding for student services. A lot of people on this blog want to talk about a lack of a mandate to do this. I’d say every time anti-VSU tickets are elected in student organisations, that’s a mandate.

  Students want these services funded. They’re even happy to fund them themselves. They just don’t have the money to pay upfront.

  Comment by Madeline on 10 March 2009 at 01:20:11 PM

• I suggest that you have a read of the literature that comes from the student bodies who adminster these services. They are radical hot beds and that is why the government wants to reintroduce compulsory fees after promising not to. The fact that they promised not to, during an election, shows that there is not strong political support for them. And now they are in power they want to support that left wing training ground and sphere of influence. I know because I used to be involved, many years ago. This has nothing to do with the services as such, that’s just a smoke screen.

  Comment by Helen on 10 March 2009 at 01:07:19 PM

• I’m simply amazed at the number of people who claim they don’t use student services.

  Do you use SWOTvac?

  Do you park on campus?

  Do you care about plagiarism policies?

  Do you use special consideration?

  Do you eat on campus?

  Do you buy second hand textbooks?

  Are you a member of any club? (religious clubs, Liberal clubs, faculty clubs - it’s all student services)

  In reality, everyone uses these services. And if you think that student representatives don’t achieve anything, try failing more than 50% of your units at Monash and refusing to have the student representative on your APC panel.

  Student representation at Monash has been responsible for saving students from exclusion, reducing parking costs (you think they’re bad now? You should have seen the original proposal!), improving special consideration policy, changing the plagiarism policy to protect students’ intellectual property rights… And that’s just in the past two years!

  Still think you don’t use student services? Try living without them.

  And as for this “freedom of association” junk - don’t make me laugh. This bill is not about making everyone a member, it’s about funding services. In the same way that you only using public transport shouldn’t stop the federal government spending money on roads, these services are for the benefit of students and can’t be funded any other way.

  Don’t like how your student association is being run? Vote for a different ticket - the Liberals usually run every year at all campuses. You know what’s interesting? The number of people saying that don’t want political campaigns - it’s interesting because year after year, it’s the tickets that promise campaigns that get elected.

  And let’s make one final thing clear - the bill, as it stands, does not send one cent to student unions. It places University control on the money, with regulations about what services (sporting, childcare, etc) should be funded. In that, I think it falls far short of funding all essential services. But perfect or not, these services are withering away - and for them to survive, students are either going to have to pay through an honest, direct fee - or indirectly, through taxes, or through (as Monash does) hiked costs of user-pays services like carparking. Personally, I’d prefer to pay it later.

  Comment by Madeline on 10 March 2009 at 12:58:26 PM

• Hi Senator,

  In response to a previous comment by Byron Hodkinson, I resent the implication that the people who support this bill are “thugs” and were involved in vandalizing your office. I am a student studying full time with just as much right to my opinion as the Liberals who say the world is entitled to hear theirs.

  I support this bill, it will provide essential student services with the funding they need to cater to students needs. Going to university isn’t just about studying for your degree and leaving as some people would like to tell you, it’s about being supported in a way that lets you do so.

  If this money were coming out of a different pocket, most of these respondents wouldn’t have a problem with it. We pay for the services we need, all of them, including academic support and advocacy, student media and the essential aspects of student life.

  Please, Please support this bill.

  Comment by Heidi J. Sandstrom on 10 March 2009 at 07:36:10 AM

• Students are already doing it tuff at the moment. This is not the time to give the kiss of death to student support services. It seems that some would like nothing more than to save a few bucks by sacrificing services that help so many students in need of them every day, but I can’t support an idea like that.

  Countless students go through times when they just need help, whether it is advocacy, housing help or someone to talk to. Many students can’t get that help they need simply because the money just isn’t there. This bill can change that.

  This “every student for themself” model has been disastrous. Sometimes people need the kind of help that only student support services can provide. The money from this bill will save these necessary services.

  Please Senator, save the support services.

  Comment by swilk@deakin.edu.au on 09 March 2009 at 09:00:02 PM

• Dear Senator Fielding,

  Please seriously consider voting against this bill. I am a full time student I and work part time to help pay for transport, textbooks, and many other expenses.

  I do not use the services that this tax would be spent on and I find it extremely unfair that I would be burdened with more expenses in these difficult economic times. It also worries me that even one cent of this compulsory tax could be sent to student unions.

  In the workplace compulsory unionism has been abandoned as it does not represent the whole of the work force. Why should struggling students be treated any different, I pay the same taxes everybody else does, so why should I also have to pay a tax just because of my status as a student.

  The decline in services after VSU shows just how unnecessary and unwanted they were. If people want to keep using these services they can VOLUNTARILY pay for them if the WANT to use them.

  I have no need of these services, so I fail to see why I should pay for something that I don’t need when I can’t afford to be wasting money.

  I hope that you can see how unnecessary, unfair and expensive this bill would be for students and their families and I hope that you choose to vote against it.

  Every cent counts Senator.

  Comment by Lars Hargraves on 09 March 2009 at 08:08:36 PM

• I was attending university in 2005 when the original VSU bill was being debated and find it amusing that the Liberals are using the same arguments as they did then, despite the significant differences between the pre VSU campus and the government’s proposal. But I suppose if facts were to be acknowledged the liberals case would be harder to argue.

  It is obvious that student politics won’t be funded with the fee. I know this because I took the time to read the bill and the guidelines. I highly recommend all interested parties do the same.

  The fact is, things aren’t acceptable the way they are. Services have declined, there’s no denying that (well at least not truthfully). Something has to be done, and this the fee seems to be the only way to do it. Perhaps if the liberals quit their union bashing and actually tried to solve the issues, they would have developed a decent alternative model as apposed to resorting to argument recycling.

  This bill will restore the essential services without allowing students money to be used on political campaigns. If you for some reason don’ think this is the case, then suggest amendments to the bill. This forum is the perfect opportunity to do so.

  Comment by stevemoore on 09 March 2009 at 07:55:55 PM

• Senator Fielding,
  University is supposed to be for everyone from any socio-economic background. I fail to understand how forcing students from low socio-economic backgrounds to pay large compulsory fees, which is spent on funding student unionism, political rallies and social events, is going to help those who are at the centre of this issue: THE STUDENTS.
  I attend a Western Australia university which has a vibrant social life as well as many services. While I do use the services, I believe it should be up to the individual to decide if they pay their Guild fees and then receive the discounted benefit of their services. I pay my Guild fees each year but there are some days when I do not use anything on the campus. I have found it discouraging that my Guild fees are spent on funding political rallies and individual students own ambitions, which I do not support, instead of redirecting the funds to services such as medical and counseling.
  I think that imposing such a tax on every student, no matter their University and its services, is unfair and is an unnecessary extra burden on student finances and their subsequent HECS debts. For this semester alone I have paid out over $400 in textbooks along with over $100 in parking permits and I struggle to afford these in the first place. As an independent student I also have to pay for rent, food, car payments and bills and any extra pressure, especially in the current global climate, would be an extra stress. While there is the argument that it can be put on HECS I am aware of just how large my HECS debt currently is and will be by the time I finish. I am not prepared to make it any larger especially as I will be paying back my debt at a time in my life when I will want to buy a house and save for the future.
  I believe Guilds must reconsider where funding goes and prioritise services over supporting clubs and rallies that do not provide for the student body as a whole.
  I urge you to consider what is best for ALL students and their interests.

  Comment by kahla on 09 March 2009 at 05:31:11 PM

• Steve,

  If you don’t want to see student unions spend thousands of dollars on political campaigns again, then vote against this bill.

  The Victorian experience with compulsory fees (which ‘banned’ political activity) showed that you could not prevent unions funding their political activities with student money. Unions would take (unregulated) profits from services such as the cafeteria and put them into salaries for office bearers and campaigns against governments that were worth as much as $250 million (as in 2004).

  The reality is that these fees will also act as poll taxes, regardless of what spin student unions put on it.  The bill ignores capacity to pay, and most importantly, capacity to use.  What about the kids that work two jobs to survive and don’t have time to sit around drinking subsidised beer on campus? This will be the silent majority subsidising a roudy, unrepresentative minority of student union leaders.

  The idea that you need a compulsory fee to prop up services on campus is ridiculous - do you see the Mount Waverley Footy Club relying on every resident paying some form of compulsory fee to operate?  Services that have ‘collapsed’ since VSU are already provided by the private sector or the government - think bulk billing for medical services, or online forums such as textbookexchange.com.au that allows students to purchase second hand books without the student union taking a cut.

  Finally - please remember that those urging you to support this bill are the same thugs that smashed your office after you voted to support students and freedom of association in 2005.

  Byron Hodkinson

  Comment by ALSF on 09 March 2009 at 03:38:35 PM

• Hi Steve,

  Students, like every other person or corporate entity already pay income taxes, capital gains taxes, stamp duty and all of the other taxes that everyone else pays.

  What we are really talking about here is compulsory funding for unions.

  The question is whether students should be forced to pay money, that will go to a particular political group, pushing a particular political agenda.

  It doesn’t make any sense to take a group that are already taxed, under the same income tax rules as everyone else, and then force them to pay an extra levy, so that a union gets more money to spend on it’s activities - activities which that union claims are “for the benefit of students” but which are nothing to do with students at all.

  This money does not help students in need - just look at the way the services are provided. At my uni, there is a union, but there isn’t any childcare provided, nor legal services, nor medical services. What am I paying $250 for? To feather the nests of the next generation of union officials and Labor Party politicians?

  Why are we taking an already vulnerable part of our community, that are already taxed, and whacking another tax on top of all of the others. If you’re going to tax someone, tax the people with money to pay it. It doesn’t make sense to tax the people at the bottom of the income chain.

  Finally, the tax is, in effect, a poll tax - it doesn’t distinguish between wealthy and poorer students, it just charges everyone the same. If you’re already striggling to pay the bills, you’re charged the same as the person who will just ask mum and dad for the $250. The person who loses is the person who is struggling to pay the bills already - the same person that is in need of the non-existent childcare services, or the non existent legal and medical services. Instead of having $250 in their pocket to get childcare, or legal services, their $250 goes to a student union, who spends the money on toga parties, and cultural festivals - things that only the rich students have the time to enjoy, because they aren’t working two or three jobs tryong to get themselves through a uni degree.

  Please don’t punish students with another tax. We are already struggling and taking $250 a year makes things that little bit (or big bit) harder.

  Comment by Alex on 09 March 2009 at 02:30:55 PM

• Steve,
  In answer to your question I would argue that the opinions of most of the people engaged in this discussion would not change even if the dollar amount of the fee did.
  I think if you are somebody who cannot understand that a user-pay system always translates into a wealthy pay and poor don’t receive system, then you would not ever agree with the principle that the cost of these essential services should be communal.
  Obviously I am of the opinion that we must balance what is reasonable to expect students to pay with the cost of the services we are hoping to fund. If $250.00 is the amount that will successfully fund all of these services then that is the appropriate amount.
  It is clear to me that we know a couple of things in this debate, which I would like to reemphasise:
  a. These services are essential. Every student uses them in some capacity or another. Some use them more than others sure, but the fact remains, they benefit everybody.
  b. A user pay system cannot work in this situation. Not only does it undermine the principle of welfare and equity, but it is impossible to determine who is the user in many cases, like the case of representation. It simply doesn’t make sense!
  c. This is student money. It is being collected on behalf of students to improve their university experiences. Therefore they must have control over how it is allocated. the only way to effectively do that is to put it in the hands of elected student associations, with the ability for students to have oversight fulfilled.
  d. Universities are NOT just a place you learn. They are a social and cultural experience that many have at the formative times in their lives. It is important that we promote this culture. An increase in the quality of student services achieves that.
  e. Australia is falling behind in terms of student satisfaction. Precisely because we have undervalued these services: Student experiences have gone downhill since the introduction of VSU. You can rectify this.

  This is such an easy choice!

  Comment by gemma on 09 March 2009 at 01:58:49 PM

• The reality is that for these essential services to exist, someone has to pay. That means that at some point, someone has to pay taxes. We can do one of four things:

  1) Tax the general populace - have the government pay for the services like childcare and student rights help. This means that, in the end, the students are still paying - it’s just extremely direct.

  2) Not have the services. That means no childcare, no cheap printing, no representative services, no student rights, no welfare departments, reduced religious services, no clubs and societies, no second hand book sales. Fairly obviously untenable.

  3) A “pay-as-you-go” scheme. The problem with this is the question about how you pay for something like a religious service, survival centres or student rights officers, which are often used in a way that’s hard to track. In order to pay for them, you have to take funds raised from another source and redirect them - that’s still a tax, it’s just one that’s less honest. Students still end up paying that money - and because of the added bureaucracy, may end up paying more.

  4) A direct fee. This is honest, and easy to oversee. It means students at least have some idea of where their money is going. And, under the current proposal, it means that students aren’t having to pay upfront - unlike what would happen under a continued pay-as-you-go model.

  The one way to improve it, of course, is to give those students actual control. Why should Monash have control of the money I’m paying for services that I use? They don’t care about them the way I do. And if they misuse that money, my only way of “voting” against them is to leave - not exactly a great option. But with student organisations, I can vote for new leadership, or organise a SGM to invalidate inappropriate expenditure. After all, students know best what students need.

  Fielding, the introduction of VSU has seen an absolute collapse of student services at most universities, and underhanded ways of “taxing” students to raise the money at the rest. Vote for honesty and student control.

  Comment by Madeline on 09 March 2009 at 11:59:05 AM

• Hi Steve,

  Thanks for your continued interest in hearing our thoughts.

  In response to your question about the amount of money involved, if it was $25, $2.50 or even 25c, it would still be too much.

  I say this because forcing people to give up their freedom of choice and freedom of association is wrong.

  We live in a free country where struggling students should have the right to choose where their scarce resources are spent. Their purchase decisions should not be left to an unrepresentative group of student politicians. People who even under the voluntary payment system currently squander union members’ money on their own ideological causes.

  Please don’t let this great injustice happen to Australian students.

  Comment by Cam_Sinclair on 09 March 2009 at 11:02:47 AM

• Hello Senator. I believe that the compulsory student amenities fees should be re-introduced. Anyone who has been at University over the last couple of years has seen how much student institutions on campus have suffered.

  The current financial crisis and the economic repurcussions currently have no real relevance to this proposition as the payment of such fees have been deffered in a similar way to HECS fees currently are.

  Students often use University subsidised services without even realising it. Clubs & Societies, services for women, counselling and support services, student union run social activities, sporting services, eating places on campus, parking etc. are all effected by such fees and a lack of them in recent years.

  The principle hat everyone pays for the greater good is the same as why we all pay taxes for rural roads that I never use, to fund wars that I don’t believe in and to support farmers in rural areas. We all do not benefit from these things but we pay for them because of the collective good of the country. The same is true for Universities. Please Senator, help to re-introduce student ammenities fees.

  Comment by monique on 09 March 2009 at 10:30:09 AM

• Hi All

  Can I just say a big thank you to all of those who are engaging in this debate so passionately.  The vast majority of posts have been articulate and well considered.  I want to read and consider them all so I urge you to be as succinct as possible with your comments.

  For clarification, can I ask would anyone’s decision change if the amount of money that must be compulsorily paid by students went up or down?  In other words, is there an amount that every student would be happy to be taxed, or an amount that everybody believes is too much to be collected by a compulsory student tax?

  Cheers
  Steve

  Comment by Senator Steve Fielding on 09 March 2009 at 10:08:02 AM

• Dear Senator,

  Firstly, I would like to say, such a tax is quite inappropriate, particularly, in a time such as this, of great economic turbulence. I am currently studying a double degree, Bachelor of Economics/ Laws. I have two siblings who are also studying at a tertiary institution, and taxing us is that last thing we need as a family. It is a tax which my hard working parents will have to assist in forking out, and believe me having 3 students in university is an incredible burden upon my families financially stability, especially in unstable economic times, where personally, my family struggles to make ends meet. If you don’t mind me saying, mortgage payments, utility payments, council fees, just to name a few, have my hard working parents and family, in financial stress, and we will happily do without another burden, which will be on services not used by my siblings and I.

  Senator Fielding is it fair to tax us on services which are not used by us?
  And even if the payments will be added to HECS that is an extra 1500 dollars (plus CPI) that will be taken out of my income after university, adding to the 40,000 debt (plus CPI) which will incurred after my study.  That extra 1500 (plus CPI), will be taken out for a service that I rarely, better yet have never used, and never intend on using. Many Students and Friends I know have no intention of using such services provided by the Student Unions.  Let’s be Honest Senator the necessary services for students are already being provided by all universities. Many services which such unions provide for students are merely duplicates of services which already exist on campus at no extra cost.

  Senator Fielding, in general, it is ridiculous and highly unfair to tax students and add this stress which will hit poor students such as myself and struggling families that hardest. As a Labor Supporter (former I should say), I am absolutely disgusted by the Government who if you don’t mind me saying have betrayed young students and their struggling families of Australia, by promising not to reintroduce such a tax, and are now attempting to reintroduce compulsory fees which are unfair to a majority of students who spend little time on campus, besides for attending classes. Particularly, in such a time where there is an increasing number of students finding or working part time jobs, which leaves minimal to no time for extra ‘services’.

  If I pay to join the Fishing society at my University, is it fair for every student to pay and be forced to join such a society. Where is the common liberty and freedom underlying the base of Australians constitution? We are all individuals with rights and have a choice on what to join or what not to join;  we are a still a Fair Go nation, Right Senator?

  In general all the Essential services are provided by a majority of universities, and taxing struggling students for services which they do not use now or after study is unfair. Clearly the purpose of such a tax is for increased revenue.
  Thank you very much Senator Fielding for giving me the opportunity to express my opinion on your blog, and please do NOT support the Student Amenities Bill. Student rights are very important and you have shown your support previously, so please do it again, and vote this bill down.

  Regards

  Comment by Joe Cook on 09 March 2009 at 07:14:59 AM

• Nick, your simplistic look at student services can only be the product of ignorance or an attempt to justify a clearly ideological argument.

  If you worked in student services you would understand how important this bill is. The user pays model simply hasn’t worked. Services just aren’t good enough due to lack of funding.

  DOING NOTHING WILL DO NO GOOD!

  Comment by Ron on 08 March 2009 at 06:57:04 PM

• Senator Fielding,

  Student Services are one of the most under-appreciated, often misunderstood aspects to a persons time at university. 

  So many people are arguing against this bill using the propaganda presented to them by certain groups, arguing that they don’t want student unions funding political activism.

  It’s a very real reality that this money will revive services which all students need, whether they know it or not.

  When we get into trouble, Academic Advocates support us.

  Student Sport gives us campus culture, gives us campus pride and most importantly, gives us the opportunity to make friends.

  Campus Magazines give future writers, artists, photographers a chance to be published. It gives us the feeling of inclusion, it makes us feel like there is something written by us, for us.

  Student health services help us when we’re down.

  Childcare services are invaluable. Not just to studying parents, but staff, and the children whose parents are working hard so they can all have a brighter future. 

  You know, if I have to pay $250 dollars to fund these services, well, I will do it, because there is a bigger picture here than my wallet.

  Support the Student Amenities Bill.

  Comment by Heidi J. Sandstrom on 08 March 2009 at 06:06:09 PM

• Ron, welfare is provided by the government, not your university.  Welfare or work are how one generates an income for food or lodging.  If you cannot get by on welfare, you need either a job or a reassessment of your spending.  As a sharp contrast, I thank TereenHough - that is the model of someone who is grateful for the opportunities that government assistance gives them, instead of greedily asking for more.  Ron also mentions advocacy services and not being kicked out of uni as essentials to earning a degree.  Universities, to my knowledge, do not easily exclude students.  To be excluded, either breaches of university policy or unsatisfactory academic results are typically required.  People who either consistently fail to achieve or breach policy have no right to remain at the institution, least of all at the expense of everyone else.

  Lachlan, buying food at uni is a luxury.  If you want to cut your costs, bring a packed lunch.  Having a food co-op may bring down the cost of ready-made food, but it should not be a choice subsidised by everybody else.  Similarly, the need for child care at university is the result of a choice - the choice to have a child.  If you cannot afford to raise a child and go to university, you need to determine your priorities.  A radio station is not an essential service.  Neither is a second-hand bookshop - students are easily enough able to sell used books to one another using the Internet.  If you want these, there is no reason for those who are indifferent to fund them.

  Comment by Nick Kashin on 08 March 2009 at 02:27:19 PM

• The reality is VSU affected some universities more than others and whilst Melbourne, Sydney and even Monash where able to continue to fund student services the outer metropolitan Unis that cater to student from the working class areas they are situated in got hit hard. As a student at La Trobe University I have seen the worst aspects of VSU first hand as I’m sure students from UWS and Griffith have too. At our campus the food co-op has gone, the child care co-op has gone, the student radio station has gone, the 2nd hand bookshop has gone meaning the cost of all of these things has gone up. Students from Melbourne’s north and areas like it need this legislation to pass. For us it’s more than just an issue of ‘student culture’ as important as that is, it’s about continuing to be able to afford uni. Please pass the bill so some of the kids growing up in reservoir today can be the parliamentarians of tomorrow.

  Comment by Lachlan on 08 March 2009 at 11:50:02 AM

• Sir, I urge you to vote down this student fee.  I decided to go to medical school at age 45.  I’m living on Austudy and HECS-deferring my tuition.  I just spent $1000 on books.  I’m so grateful to the Australian taxpayer that I am able to even do this - in any other country, I simply couldn’t do it.  We have such generous funding of tertiary education here.  BUT, if I had to pay an extra $250 a year, I couldn’t.  If I added it to my HECS, that just pushes it up even more.  As it is, I’m going to be paying it back for a long time - and I’m not going to have that many years to pay it back. 
  I don’t really know what all the political issues are, I only know my own situation.
  I am, however, a pretty experienced person.  It seems logical to me that any non-essential non-academic expenses should be born by the user.  I hardly spend any time on campus because I live so far away.  I’m not anxious to fund something I won’t use.
  I’m sympathetic to the plight of young students, but I still feel it should be a user pay issue.
  Thanks for listening.

  Comment by TereenHough on 08 March 2009 at 10:34:51 AM

• Students having to pay $250 a year to be able to access the fundamental student services is not an ideal situation. I think that is agreeable to most. In a perfect world universities would be properly funded and this wouldn’t be an issue. The fact is however that it is the only way in which vital services will be delivered adequately.

  Because of the generally low income status of students, a demand driven model of service provision cannot work. This is because students simply can’t afford to pay the real cost of services such as advocacy, so they simply don’t use them. This means that subsidies are the only way. 

  There is limitless proof the the demand service model doesn’t work. It has had no benifet to students aside from a few libs who got that feeling that could only come from destroying a union. As I said before, VSU had its merits, but we need to get adequate services back on campus.

  To address a point by Nick, regarding the relevance to the core objectives of a university. Ask any non moron in the higher education sector, and they will tell you non educational issues in a person’s life can hinder there learning e.g not having a place to sleep or food to eat. University service providers and students associations deal with these issues so individuals can reach their potential as students. Even more relevant is the provision of advocacy services. Not getting kicked out of uni is an important step in getting a degree.

  Comment by Ron on 08 March 2009 at 09:42:04 AM

• Many posters since my last contribution have made a big point of the fact that payment of the fee can be deferred on HECS.  Great!  With a six-year double degree, which is set to leave me with a (CPI-indexed) debt of something near enough to $60,000 as it is, I cannot wait for an opportunity to add another $250 per year (plus CPI, let’s not forget) to the total.  Students are already emerging from higher education with the sort of debt that, until the housing boom, we used to call a home loan.  The last thing that young people need, when they are entering the workforce, when they are trying to buy their first home in a time of record prices, is the burden of this extra debt.

  Since Gemma elected to mention me personally in her latest contribution, I would be remiss not to respond in kind.

  So, Gemma, you point us to the protests against proposed HECS increases some years ago as an indication of the usefulness of student associations.  I thank you for citing an example that so strongly supports my contention - that student associations cannot make a difference to any issue of real contentiousness.  The HECS increases were passed, the 25% hike became a reality.  The protests came to nothing.  Students paid for them, whether they liked it or not, and they came to nothing.

  In fact, Gemma mentions “lobbying” and “campaigning” a lot, but all this lobbying and campaigning is conspicuous for its lack of output.  Textbooks, for instance, cost more or less the same when I started at university as they do now.

  Evident also is a fundamental misconception about the purpose of taxation.  While it does have a (controversial) redistributative function and some taxes are designed as carrot and stick measures to encourage or discourage certain behaviours, the primary purpose is obviously revenue-raising.  This is revenue raised not for some egalitarian “communal good”, but for the types of services that could not always be provided adequately to a sufficient cross-section of the population by the free market.  Without the provision of these services, the need for the existence of a government could be challenged - what is the use in a body to which we surrender some liberties if it offers us nothing in return?

  The role of a university is plain - it is an educational and research institution.  To say that this merits an additional fee for “services” that are extraneous to those two purposes is absurd.

  Helpfully, Gemma has disclosed what “services” actually means.  She has, however, failed to demonstrate that everybody either uses them or, where they apparently “benefit” from them unconsciously, desires for this “benefit” to continue.  Child care, counselling, clubs and societies, student spaces - these are all used only by some of the people.  It is unfair that all should pay for some to access these.  I raise the same question I asked before: if I want to join a yacht club, should everyone have to pay for it?  I do not see how.  Out there in society, we all pay our own way.  The exception, of course, are the disadvantaged, but they already have access to all the essentials through welfare and other government-funded pathways.  Recall: welfare is a government issue, not a university issue.

  As for representation, I stand by my earlier statement.  It makes no difference on issues where there is significant friction between university management and the student representatives and it cannot make any difference because the university has all the bargaining chips.  As for “benefits” like the (yet to be accepted, let’s note) plan for longer SWOTVAC - marvellous!  Worth $250?  Not to me. Those who disagree, by all means foot the bill.  No one else should have to.

  As a final point, I would like to cut through the pseudo-emotional nonsense that has, in reality, no relevance to the present issue.  Gemma made much of the deprivation that bushfire victims would supposedly have suffered were it not for the student associations.  As touching as it is that she is exploiting a national tragedy for political argument, let us be realistic.  Student organisations are far from the only people trying to help bushfire victims.  I am sure universities would, of their own accord, do as much as possible to assist in the circumstances, with or without student associations.  In any case, such tragedies are, thankfully, one-off events.  Using them to justify imposing a continuing fee regime is illogical.

  Senator Fielding, the proponents of this system have failed to illustrate how it is a fair one.  How the fee is essential to the core objectives of a university.  Student organisations will survive, if they offer their members compelling value.  They and their affiliates should not have to be propped up by everyone for the benefit of some.  The truly equitable solution is to vote against this proposal.

  Comment by Nick Kashin on 08 March 2009 at 12:41:19 AM

• Be warned Senator, the Liberals are try to get everyone they can to put propaganda in front of you. They’re telling everyone who will listen to send you letters including the spin words ‘student tax’ etc.

  I am both a Liberal party member and a member of my uni’s Liberal club, but I refuse to go with the party line on this one.

  VSU needed to happen. Students were paying a lot of money to serve the political agendas of a few, to no benefit to students. It however also had the devastating consequence of destroying vital student services such as advocacy, housing and welfare services.

  The governments bill has the balance right between protecting essential services and preventing the money being used for political purposes.  I urge you to vote in favour of this bill, to get campus services back to scratch.

  Comment by Ron on 07 March 2009 at 08:54:19 PM

• Hello

  I do not think students should have to pay taxes on services that does not apply to all of us
  Please make your decision based on how you feel is best in the students interest

  Comment by Georgina12 on 07 March 2009 at 04:51:49 PM

• Dear Senator,

  Please, please, vote this bill down.

  There is no greater injustice than forcing struggling students to pay a membership fee to an organisation full of selfish individuals. These people only care about advancing their own cause and ideology.

  You’ve voted for student rights in the past, please do so once again.

  Comment by Cam_Sinclair on 07 March 2009 at 04:16:52 PM

• Please support this vital Bill!

  For those of you who doubt that VSU has had a negative impact on University communities as a whole, I urge you to check out the results from the AUSSE survey that your University would have participated in.

  Across the Board the survey found that student satisfaction with vital services and their experience as students has fallen since the introduction of VSU.

  Compared to other OECD countries, Australias rate of student satisfaction and engagement is pitiful, and falling since the introduction of VSU.

  Look at the facts!

  Introduce the SA Fee to fund our student communities!

  Comment by Cayla on 07 March 2009 at 11:48:49 AM

• Please oppose this unfair tax on students, Senator Fielding. It is unfair to part time and external students to pay for services they will not use. It is also unfair to people who live some distance from their university campus, and cannot afford to live on campus.  This tax on students will cover services I don’t use. I don’t use childcare facilities, I don’t play sport on campus, and the university is too far from my home to participate in most entertainment events held on campus.  What’s more, all essential services at my university, UQ are currently provided free by the university itself. Also, there is nothing in the legislation to prevent the costs charged to students for these services I have little need for from increasing year to year. Students are spending less and less time on campus and shouldn’t be paying more and more for services they don’t use. If the goal is to make the university experience more positive for students the government should provide more funding so as to reduce class sizes and give students some individual attention. I have been in a number of classes with over 500 students. I understand now that the government plans to massively increase the number of students attending university, so class sizes will go up and up. Parliamentarians must focus on ensuring that students receive value for money for every dollar that they spend on their own education.

  Comment by Gerhard Leinenga on 07 March 2009 at 11:27:04 AM

• Someone hit the money spot (pun!) earlier - “freedom of association”.

  Have we forgotten that?

  Comment by Kwayera on 07 March 2009 at 10:49:34 AM

• Steve, thanks for opening this up for us to give you our opinion, good luck reading through all the passionate posts.

  As someone who started uni questioning whether the compulsory union fee arrangement was reasonable, I’d like to bring you my perspective.

  I think a lot of the arguments surrounding union waste are a little spurious.  The important thing to remember is that elected officebearers are just that - elected - and like elected parliamentarians are expected to enact the policies they campaign on.  Sometimes they are quite left or right wing, in response to the students that elected them.  Yes, more often than not they are left wing, as university students on the whole tend to be a little more left wing than the broader population.

  Like parliamentarians or local councils, sometimes there’s waste or people abusing their democratic mandate.  That’s where student media comes in to hold them to account, and that needs funding to keep holding them to account.  The editors are democratically elected too, to ensure the paper reflects ordinary students concerns.

  As you can see on this blog, lots of people feel like the union doesn’t represent them or their views.  Just like at times I feel like our government doesn’t represent me, unfortunately on those days I don’t get to choose whether I pay tax to them or not.

  As an elected official, you would know the difficulty of trying to get out of the office and into the community to hear constituents’ concerns and stay in touch with Victorians.  Add in the study and work commitments of ordinary students, without anything like the staff support that a parliamentarian receives, and you can understand why many people on this blog complain that they never see their elected officebearers.

  This is why paying representatives is critical.  While they might be able to squeeze a few university committee meetings around other commitments, they can’t properly dedicate themselves to talking to students, getting their views, and bringing them to the university if they’re just doing it on the side.

  As for the beer and BBQ’s, much like our government spends millions of dollars on sport despite plenty of people not being at all interested, it’s done to build community and also make sure students chat to their elected representatives and keep the union honest.

  When it comes to clubs support, yes, some can just get by.  Big faculty clubs with their careers guides and nightclub sponsorships can still get alternate funding in some cases.  What tends to miss out are all the cultural and special interest clubs.  Everything from your Cantonese club, juggling and charity clubs, and yes, even the Christian clubs, struggle without funding. 

  What really gets hit though are new clubs.  I don’t want students to not start the next Oaktree Foundation or Embrace Education group because the logistical support with auditing and incorporation doesn’t exist, but that’s the case on many uni campuses now.

  The new system proposed by Labor is a good move from the old days.  Deferring the fee is so important to ensure students can afford to go to uni.  The detail of the representation benchmarks will be critical to ensure the fees are spent correctly and is a good introduction.

  Ultimately, like paying rates to the council, if you made it voluntary nobody would pay, rubbish would pile up, and all of us would be worse off.

  Comment by Julian Campbell on 07 March 2009 at 10:09:10 AM

• Senator Fellding,

  Lets cut through all the political jostling and simply review the facts of this debate. In terms of arguments put forth by those in opposition to this bill, let me deal with them directly:
  - Do students have enough money to pay this fee?
  1. It has been stated that students are heavilly indebted due to HECS and a lack of income support so they can’t afford to pay.
  YES STUDENTS ARE STRUGGLING WITH THESE ISSUES, BUT YOU FORGET THAT IT IS STUDENT ASSOCIATIONS THAT CAMPAIGNED AGAINST THE PROPOSED HECS INCREASES ONLY A FEW YEARS AGO. IT IS STUDENT ASSOCIATIONS WHO ARE NOW LOBBYING THE GOVT TO IMPROVE THE FINANCIAL SITUATIONS OF STUDENTS THROUGH THE STIMULUS PACKAGE AND YOUTH ALLOWANCE. SO IT IS LOGICAL TO ASSUME THAT WHEN STUDENTS ARE BEING TREATED POORLY BY THE GOVT. IT IS ACTUALLY A POSITIVE THING FOR THEM TO FUND THE UNIONS THAT ARE ATTEMPTING TO MAKE THEIR LIVES BETTER.
  The argument was made that textbooks are more important than amenities fees. IT’S QUITE IRONIC THEN THAT AT MONASH, AND THROUGHOUT AUSTRALIA, STUDENT ASSOCIATIONS HAVE BEEN FIERCELY LOBBYING TO HAVE THESE COSTS REDUCED AND PROVIDING SOLUTIONS SUCH AS PUTTING READINGS ONLINE TO THE UNIVERSITY.
  2. The money can be defered on to HECS so actually the system we are advocating allows students to defer payment for essential services until they are in a better position to pay. Students need these services. UNDER THE CURRENT SYSTEM THEY HAVE TO PAY ANYWAY. UNDER A CSU SYSTEM THEY GET THOSE SERVICES AND CAN PAY FOR THEM WHEN THEY HAVE THE MONEY. SO WHICH SYSTEM LOOKS AFTER THE INTERESTS OF STUDENTS..?
  3. We as a society have accepted the principle of communal good and that is why we pay tax. Sure we could have a user pay system, but actually USER PAY IS JUST CODE FOR RICH PAY AND POOR DON’T GET! THAT IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH! YOU SPEAK OF FAMILIES. HOW WOULD MOST FAMILIES BE DOING RIGHT NOW IF WE ADOPTED THIS USER PAY PRINCIPLE IN LIFE AND NOT JUST IN UNIVERSITIES. Lets take the recent Monash example, where the student association was able to successfully lobby the university to provide free textbooks for all those students who suffered in the Victorian bushfires. Sure, not every student benefits from that. Do you Senator think that is a convincing argument in light of all the good these organisations do. Which user pays for that service..? Those people who have lost all their possessions..? Or is it acceptable that we expect that all students have the human decency to care enough about these families to be ok with a bit of their money goint into this lobbying service.

  - Who benefits from the services and representation that student associations provide..?
  1. THE SIMPLE ANSWER IS ABSOLUTELY EVERYBODY. IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER EVERYONE IN A UNIVERSITY USES THE SERVICES (CHILDCARE, COUNSELLING, LIBRARY FACILITIES, CLUBS AND SOCIETIES, WELFARE SUPPORT, STUDENT RIGHTS, ADVOCACY, STUDENT SPACES, OR THE SIMPLE ACT OF BEING REPRESENTED)
  Let me give you a practical example of this. In response to Nick’s earlier post, which claimed that he did not care about student particpation in university decision making. Well at Monash (incidently where Nick is from) the student association has recently submitted to the university a draft for semester timetabling that looks likely to be adopted. While the university was aiming to remove SWOTVAC altogether (something that monash students have been calling to extend for years), the student association has proposed the extension of SWOTVAC to a full week. This plan, if adopted, will benefit all students, even those who are so called indifferent to representation. JUST BECAUSE STUDENTS ARE OFTEN NOT ENGAGED ENOUGH TO KNOW WHAT SERVICES THE UNION PROVIDES, DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY DO NOT BENEFIT FROM THE HARD WORK OF DEDICATED GROUPS OF PEOPLE WHO ARE THERE WORKING ON THEIR BEHALF.

  Let’s be honest, the reason people oppose Compulsary fees is because they hate unions or thet don’t believe in the idea of community. Either way, this fee must be levied. It is the students who need the most support that lose if we do not impliment this bill and it is those students, those families, who we as a decent society should undertake to help the most. If people on this blog do not agree, Mr. Fielding, then maybe they would be happy to explain to those families who are recieving extra assisstance, that their children are not going to recieve free textbooks because they don’t want to pay for their student association to function.

  VOTE THE BILL UP. AS SOMEBODY WHO CARES ABOUT FAMILY, YOU MUST VOTE UP THIS BILL.

  Comment by gemma on 07 March 2009 at 10:02:05 AM

• I’ve never met a student who thought VSU was a bad thing who wasn’t also a student unionist.

  I bore the burden of the student tax for the first three years of my academic career, and I’d have to say that I actually make more use of student services now than I did before.  And I’m an off-campus student!

  I just can’t see any evidence that VSU has resulted in a decline in student services, other than the service of providing left wing political activists with the opportunity to travel the country spreading their messages of hate.

  If we return to the days where my student fees go to support big glossy pro-abortion posters all over campus, I’d have to seriously reconsider whether it’s worth continuing as an Australian student when I could just as easily study online with a foreign university.

  Comment by Alan Shore on 07 March 2009 at 09:32:34 AM

• As both a student and the currently serving President of a Student Organisation located on a regional campus I can confirm that students in smaller and regional Universities suffer as a result of VSU.

  Being a campus that caters to 3500 students in a regional and remote area of QLD offers enough of a divide and disadvantage to students. Having to fight and battle for basic services from (and against) both the University and other Campus diminishes what little hope and services Students outside of the Group of Eight have.

  The previous fees largely went to services that student expected from university and student associations (Unions), since VSU these services have disappeared. Health services and Student funded social clubs, sporting teams and interest groups became the first victims. Social activities and Campus life died a fast and painful demise, even after commerical aspects raised prices -negatively impacting students- in an attempt to fill the void created by the removal of fees.

  My campus can barely retain Student Representation and Academic Advocacy, Welfare and Social Support. And I sadly must admit that Academic Advocacy and Welfare Support are vestiges- names sakes retained in the vain hopes that the services can be provided without funds.

  I know this all sounds dramatic. And I invite you to attend my Campus and see first hand the level of services provided to the current students of the ‘Education Revolution’. My university may never be as prestigious as the Group of Eight, but the students deserve the same representation and facilities as students of other Universities.

  I’m not asking for Compulsory Student unionism, I’m pleading for services and facilities to be revived- for this I would gladly pay $250.

  Comment by JCUSACC on 07 March 2009 at 12:54:03 AM

• A compulsory student amenities fee can be compared with a a levy imposed on all Australian citizens to be directed to a national union. Analogously, it is clear that such a fee is regressive since it is raised regardless of one’s income or ability to afford it. The possible deferral of the fee does not change its inequity.

  Its inherently coercive nature suppresses individual choice. Such a scheme denies the individual student the opportunity to support those institutions and establishments he or she enjoys and values to the detriment of the quality and vibrancy of university life. Perhaps, one would prefer to spend $250 on text books to enhance learning. Instead, the introduction of a compulsory fee guarantees a revenue stream for the unions who have no reason to compete for the students’ funds. Their consequent incompetence ensures that students benefit minimally, and certainly far less than the proposed cost. Many don’t have the capacity or ability to benefit tangibly at all yet will be penalized by the compulsory fee. The student union has no reason to remain accountable (many lack fail meet even the most basic accountability measures such as annual reports), leading to the maximization of the benefit of its upper echelons. The record low voter turn outs at union elections, and the record high spending on politically activist causes, is evidence of its failure to represent the average student, who is unfortunately poorly represented by some posts in this forum. Students should be able to freely choose their own level of contribution to a political cause, whereas the union engages on his or her behalf without express or implied support. This is entirely inconsistent with the freedom of political communication and the freedom of association.

  Personally, I am fed up of the union printing off big glossy Marxist 2009 posters, and other material printed by the Education Office of the Melbourne University Student Union supporting registered terrorist organizations.

  For those services now diminished for lack of union funds, there are other viable avenues for their provision, including the university, the broader private sector and government. Examples include, but are not limited to, medical, counseling and child-care services. And, for lack of the aforementioned moral hazard, these alternatives are often far more effective, provided at a lower cost, yet delivered more qualitatively.

  The University of Melbourne donates in excess of one million dollars to the Melbourne University Student Union. The problem with this is that these funds are raised via tuition costs, yet the benefits are only accessible by union members. Similarly, the fee is to be collected from all students to be distributed to unions via university administration (stated policy) for the benefit of only those who are union members. This is unfair.

  Comment by John on 07 March 2009 at 12:31:10 AM

• “And God, start moderating your comments. There’s no way I should be allowed to get away with saying that.”

  Perhaps you could respect the host and self- censor?

  Comment by acs on 06 March 2009 at 11:44:45 PM

• I think the debate about how students who study part time and off campus will benefit from this fee is a very important one to have.

  It seems from the statements of others that some Universities are not as good as mine at supporting these types of students.

  My University offers fantastic services for off-campus students, including subsided internet, huge online learning and forums, and an amazing off-campus library service that mails books all over the country.

  These services for off-campus students are currently being provided by the University at a cost to on-campus students.

  As the expensive infrastructure to support a large off-campus cohort is funded out of the central funding pool of revenue, that money could just as easily be spent on resources for on-campus students like reading rooms or more academics.

  From my experience, I have no doubt that off campus students need just as much academic support and social inclusion as on-campus students (why would where you study make a difference to your academic needs?) and that the only thing stopping us from building real virtual networks for students who study via distance is funding and short-sightedness.

  Please pass the Bill!!

  Comment by Cayla on 06 March 2009 at 10:22:09 PM

• I would strongly urge you give your support to this bill in the Senate. Since VSU, it can hardly be argued that student services have improved. In fact, in the vast majority of cases, vital aspects of the student experience such as sports and club membership have been seriously threatened. In addition to this, services which are vital to many students like childcare, healthcare, advocacy as well as academic and personal counseling have declined, disappeared or are now offered at a price which is well out of the reach of the majority of students.

  I think this bill is incredibly important in ensuring that universities remain not only important in the academic, but also in the personal and social development of Australians. Some are saying that a $250 a year contribution is too much for a student to have to contribute towards these vital services. But in reality, this fee is about a quarter of the cost of just one university subject (and most student take 8 in a year). And like their university courses, this contribution will be deferable to a HECS-style scheme, so that students can pay for the benefits of adequate services once they have graduated and are in a financial position to do so.

  As far as I see it, the choice is clear: In this post-VSU time, student services have suffered. Students often have to put the bill for services and quality has significantly diminished. Under the Government’s plan, services will be improved to the standard they were at prior to the introduction of VSU. Furthermore, under the student services fee, students will no longer be faced will the burden of user-pay’s systems, and will be given the option of paying for these vital services when they enter the workforce, not whilst they’re doing it tough at students.

  I really hope you make the right choice and I am so glad that you are giving students such as myself the opposition to voice our concerns and be heard by politicians.

  Comment by jbutchers on 06 March 2009 at 10:17:52 PM

• Hey Steve
  Thanks for giving everyone the opportunity to share their opinion on this important issue. It’s interesting to note that browsing through some of the other responses, most of the anti-VSU arguments seem to be based on the notion that without a compulsory fee being set into place to fund the union, on-campus student life will wither away and young people will have nobody to represent them.

  Speaking as a student, I’d like to say that from my experience, that simply isn’t true. The dominant factor behind my support for VSU has been my own observations from attending the University of NSW, at which there is still enough natural demand for membership and also the ability to source corporate sponsorship to render the unions well-funded and able to provide services for those who wish to receive them. It seems to me that ultimately, VSU is at its core, a policy that gives students a freer and fairer deal at university, allowing them to make the personal choice as to what they wish to do with their money. 

  On a more practical and personal level, I’d like to point out that many of us simply cannot afford to pay Labor’s proposed ‘services and amenities’ fee which will most likely fund services that many will not use. As for the proposal that the fee be added onto HECS – I find it ironic that the National Union of Students has consistently campaigned for HECS fees to be lowered, yet would be willing to support another 250 dollars a year on top of student’s already massive loans.

  This is an unfair tax on students that effectively takes away their freedom to choose how to spend their money and live their lives.

  Comment by shannon on 06 March 2009 at 10:02:54 PM

• Dear Senator Fielding,

  I definitely suggest that you support this legislation.

  I think the “why should people pay for things that they don’t use?” argument is largely flawed. Student associations are there for people to use and the student body as a whole, benefits greatly from them.

  Whether one needs legal advice, wants to join play sport on one of the many fields, needs representation on a certain issue or just wants to buy a sandwitch, almost everyone uses student associations and they need to be maintained. For the few people who don’t, I’m sure you can understand that it’s greater for the wider student community for a student union to exist. People pay taxes for all sorts of things, whether it be someone elses heart transplant or a road on the other side of the country. While you yourself may not ever need a heart transplant or drive on the road, I’m sure people don’t have an objection paying taxes so that those
  who need it can have it.

  Over the last few years, we’ve seen many student organisations go bankrupt because of the user-pays system introduced. Many more have managed to hang on, at the expense of many services and diminishing campus culture. All of these campuses are now poorer as a result.

  The organisations are not there to run huge profits. They are there to do their utmost to provide students with the best University experience they can. In order for these services to be provided at just a sustainable level, there needs to be greater funding and that should come from those who use the services.

  VSU has also disproportionately affected small and regional campuses, many of which have had little to no support from the University because of an existing lack of funds. This creates an even wider difference between the quality of one’s University experience at rural and metropolitan campuses.

  Some of the more wealthy Universities have seen the need for student unions and were able to offer a funding agreement to keep them above water. However, these funds would be coming directly out of the University’s pockets. That’s money that isn’t going into the education system.

  Futhermore, the funding agreements aren’t providing anywhere near as much money as a compulsory student service fee would.

  Student poverty is an issue that shouldn’t be taken lightly. I do however, think that the problem can be addressed via reforms to the income support system for students and decreases in HECS, not at the expense of essential services and representation.

  Comment by James on 06 March 2009 at 10:02:48 PM

• Some fantastic points have been made on here, and I’d like to thank Mr Fielding for actually taking the time to listen to the public’s opinions on the subject. Very much appreciated.

  I am a student at UNSW, but not a member of the union. I live a long way from the university and I do not study on the main campus, and hence many of the facilities are useless are inaccessible to me. Contrary to their very ‘raison d’etre’, I do not feel like the union represents my voice or interests (they certainly have not ever asked for my opinion/s as a student, but seem to assume everything on behalf of me). I feel that if they are having such financial difficulty, which seems unlikely due to the amount of glossy, colourful propaganda they have thrown at me - mostly wasted money of course, because I got so many copies of the same thing - then there is obviously something wrong with the way the union is being run (I know USyd’s union has even been contacting alumni for donations). Why would I willingly give my hard-earned money to unknown people who will probably use it on some silly event that I won’t even participate in, or an irrational campaign, for example (as jamesr said so well) to “end racism”? Let people who want these trivialities pay for them themselves.

  As far as I can see, unionism is simply a form of bullying and elitism within the university. Please, please keep VSU, I don’t wish to be a part of that.

  Comment by frezbo on 06 March 2009 at 10:00:13 PM

• Look Senator the Fee should be passed into Legislation, it that simple. Its to be used for the right reasons and that is to improve ammenities for all students. Stop with the rubbish and pas it!!

  Comment by Richard Hicks on 06 March 2009 at 09:49:22 PM

• Senator,

  As you are well aware, students are the workforce of the future. Somewhere out there, future senators are studying, trying to make it through exams, trying to be the best they can be so they can bring those skills and that education to Family First, and to the Australian people.

  So why aren’t we making sure they have not only the best university education available, but all the support they need to get through their degrees?

  Student services have been feeling the strain of poverty for far too long. How can we say we offer students the best possible start, when we can’t even offer them the right to academic advocacy?

  How can we say we support student creativity when student magazines are non-existent?

  Ask yourself if you want this country to afford students all the opportunities they deserve, and that includes the right to health services, student media, student sport and child care.

  Support this introduction of the student services and amenities fee.

  Comment by Heidi J. Sandstrom on 06 March 2009 at 09:43:53 PM

• If a student amenities fee can be used to bring back sport to my regional campus I am all for it.

  If the fee can be spent on improving technology so off-campus students can talk to each other I support it.

  If students on all campuses can be represented by a qualified advocate at academic hearings, the fee should be charged.

  If my Uni Mag gets published again, the fee will be worth it.

  If my classmates and I can have access to childcare places, health clinics and skill development, the fee is justified.

  I am passionate about sport, but I have watched our teams become dominated by the wealthy, upper-middle class who can afford the fees. Less than a handful of regional students competed in our teams last year, and not because they didn’t want to.

  Our student paper isn’t worth salt, because no infrastructure exists to support it.

  And all sorts of cohort groups, from international students to regional students studying off-campus, are left unsupported, with few clubs, few opportunities for networking and little communication.

  Please Senator, think about your vision for a supportive, healthy community, and vote in favor of the Bill

  Comment by Cayla on 06 March 2009 at 09:32:16 PM

• Dear Sen Fielding

  I urge you to stand up for student rights and block this ill conceived bill.

  I go to a non-metropolitan university in victoria and the students here will not benefit one bit from increased services. This is because services such as healthcare, childcare, careers advice, employment and job placement, sport, and food services are all currently provided by the University itself, not by the student association. Why should students this fee when they will not benefit directly or indirectly?

  We are going through the worst economic times in my life. Many students are usually living at or below the poverty line, and have one of the highest proportions of casual employment - and are therefore likely to face the sack or reduced hours in the near future as it is casual labour most at risk. This bill will impose a tax on those least able to afford it - without giving them any benefit in return.

  Many claim that only the rich student support VSU. This is quite untrue - many people like myself dont receive parental financial support and do not come from wealthy backgrounds.
  This is a regressive tax - it cares little for your ability to pay.

  VSU forces student unions to be responsive to student needs. If they dont - no one joins. CSU will make student unions unresponsive, inefficient, and will fund political campaigns that the majority of students dont support.

  Also this is a violation of Labors election promises. They went to the election and Stephen Smith (then spokesman for education) told the nation the ALP had no intention of a compulsory fee system being reintroduced.

  If Family First wants to show true Christian compassion it will oppose this bitterly unfair bill. It imposes a regressive tax on those least able to afford it, and furthermore will not improve university services nor will it improve students education.

  Comment by Aaron M Lane on 06 March 2009 at 08:55:44 PM

• Steve. I am a Arts/Music Student at Adelaide University. This is against the core ideas of Australian society, freedom of choice. The fee is imposed on ALL university students for something which most will not use. While the imposed payment of fees/taxes relating to the protection and health of all Australians is one thing, taxing the lowest earning section of society to pay for services which they will not use is pointless.  So many students can barley afford the cost of living and books, how would they come up with large amount of money required?

  Bottom line this would result in the government benefits which some students receive (to allow them to attend university) being set straight back to the government in payment of this student tax.

  Comment by Blake on 06 March 2009 at 08:41:40 PM

• And God, start moderating your comments. There’s no way I should be allowed to get away with saying that.

  Comment by F. Hegel on 06 March 2009 at 08:30:52 PM

• Sen. Fielding, why are you asking this question over the internet? You’re only going to get Young Labor and Young Liberal student hacks sniping at each other with talking points far removed from the facts (then again, I guess you’re used to it after being in the Senate for nearly four years). If you’ve got any inkling of the way these guys spend money when they’re placed into positions of power, you’d know that their opinion isn’t worth the Ministerial office photocopy paper it’s printed on.

  Why don’t you go down the street and ask your local butcher, like you did for the stimulus package? I’m sure that man’s sage wisdom will point you in the right direction (Lord knows anyone with an Assemblies of God affiliation can’t think for themselves).

  Comment by F. Hegel on 06 March 2009 at 08:25:53 PM

• Steve,

  I strongly urge you to support a mandatory student amenities fee. I am a student of UWS Bankstown, where our student union has just been closed down completely, it is now non-existent. To try and compensate for this and ensure students rights are protected, students have been given a few ‘sponsored’ positions on the University board, paid for by the UWS private business side “uwsconnect”. Basically because of the VSU our university has become the most expensive place in our daily lives. The uswconnect business has privatized everything, and the canteen, bookstore, and other services/facilities are under their monopoly. meaning students have no choice but to pay some very hefty prices in comparison to older, studunt union supplied alternitives. IF student unionism is made mandatory, then from what I understand about the proposal it will be placed under HECS, meaning ALL will have access to the services and benefits, even if political agendas that may arise, and that is seen as a negative, the positive attributes of having a fully funded student union far outweigh those negatives. Compulsary student unionism under HECS is a fantastic scheme, and ensures student rights are protected. Unfortunately some people may never use the services, and feel gipped in a way, but the value of those services to the people who really NEED them far outweighs the loss to those people. Thankyou for giving us a voice here to discuss this important issue

  Comment by Steve M on 06 March 2009 at 08:03:29 PM

• I am completely against the (re)imposition of this student tax. I have been at university both before and after the lifting of compulsory student unionism, at the Australian National University. I can honestly say that the implementation of VSU was much welcomed by the MAJORITY of students.

  I must stress that it is an EXTREMELY SMALL MINORITY of students who want VSU repealed. They obviously do not believe in their fellow students’ right to freedom of association.

  Contrary to the belief that university life has become “less vibrant” since the implementation of VSU, my university is, if anything, more vibrant. Students are able to vote with their feet/dollars, directing their custom to the most necessary and well-run services. This has been bad news for many heavily subsidised union outlets, but good news for efficient and student friendly businesses. If any services have been cut, they have not been missed in the slightest.

  While it is stressed that the new tax cannot be used to fund political activities, this is only a formality. Politically activated students can use the money to run, say, a cafe, and then take money from the till to fund their radical political movements. The generally extreme left-wing views of these particular students is in no way representative of the majority of students.

  They certainly do not represent me. They do not know what I require as a student, and yet they feel they can speak for me, and even worse, spend my money on their little pet projects. If a service is so essential that we cannot do without it, I would prefer the university to pay for it through my fees. But I do not want my money going to special interest groups.

  This is a very poor idea on the part of Labor, and represents another broken election promise. I urge you to vote against it.

  Comment by Sebastian on 06 March 2009 at 05:57:19 PM

• With respect Mr Fielding, the vast majority of students on this blog supporting this legislation are the Union representatives that will eventually receive the funding, not the common students who’ll be paying $250 a semester for services most will never see. Real students are too busy studying and working to search for blogs on VSU and give their opinion.

  I’m from UQ, and prior to VSU, we had extensive child care services, a cinema, and thousands of dollars for clubs and societies. Unfortunately, the child care services were almost exclusively filled with the children of University staff members, the cinema only operated once a day with a showing of an obscure Iranian film, and most clubs and societies were created to use the Union funding on beer and pizza for its members.

  When VSU came in, the funding overflow was cut and the Union was forced to focus on real services. It doesn’t cost anything to attend a University committee meeting, and organising a petition is still free. Thanks to my Union under VSU, the University has made real changes to favour students, including building a large wireless network over campus and creating student spaces within the faculties. Real change comes from old fashioned representation, not million-dollar campaigns.

  Comment by Tobias on 06 March 2009 at 05:41:10 PM

• I’m concerned that some of this debate seems to be ill informed - the proposed compulsory fee would be treated like HECS, so it doesn’t immediately affect already strained student budgets; the fee would have a very specific set of services it could be used for, not “fun and games” but actual useful services for students; the fee would not be a joining fee for a student union or other student organisation, it would be administered by the university.

  Comment by victoria on 06 March 2009 at 05:29:08 PM

• Steve,

  I am an Arts/Law student at Sydney University and a member of both the Union and the Sports Union. At Sydney University we are lucky to have a really vibrant campus, there is always something on and the Union ‘Access’ programme gives great discounts on food. I think we are probably doing a lot better than most Universities under VSU.

  My real issue though is with University Sport. The Sport Union has been really badly affected. The gym and buildings are getting run down and we arent getting enough new equipment to keep up the same standard of competition as I understand existed before VSU was introduced.

  One thing I think you need to keep in mind is that (as far as i know) the fee will be deferrable, so trying to frame this as a ‘tax’ isn’t really fair. It is basically asking students to pay for what they already use in most cases. Without everybody paying, it means that the cost has gone up and now there are a huge number of people who cant afford to get involved with Uni Sport among other things.

  I hope you support this for several key reasons:
  - the fee is deferrable
  - it will increase access
  - it will increase the quality of the service provided

  Thanks very much for your time and for making this available to us.

  Comment by ozebaseball on 06 March 2009 at 05:19:28 PM

• Hi Steve,

  I just wanted to respond to the example of the University of Adelaide that has been raised as part of this blog.

  The funding agreement between the University of Adelaide and the Adelaide University Union did look to support many of the essential services on campus and ensure the viability of these services into the future. However, the 1.2 million dollars provided by the University has had to come out of key teaching and learning areas that the University will now not be able to fund - meaning increases in class sizes, cuts to resources and a poorer learning experience at the University of Adelaide.

  In addition, this is an unsustainable way to ensure that services on campus are provided beyond the funding agreement, and the Government cannot expect that the University should continue to fund these services. I expect that many Universities across the nation are in a similar position where they are simply providing transition funding in the hope that a better solution can be found. Interestingly, Universities Australia (which is the group that represents VCs) is fully supportive of the student services and amenities fee as they acknowledge the significant damage that Howard’s VSU legislation has caused on their campus. In a sector where there has actually been a decrease in funding over the past 12 years, how can the sector be expected to continue to prop up such services when they are receiving less and less funding.

  Comment by wilkdav on 06 March 2009 at 05:18:39 PM

• Senator Fielding,

  This amentities and services fee is incredibly important for students. So many students have been denied subsidised child care, medical assistance and opportunities to have a say in their education.

  We need to make sure that something is done to redress the damage done on campuses. My student organisation wants to move forward and provide more services and jobs on campus for students so that they arent under so much pressure, but we cant because we cannot afford to risk the entire organisation without a steady income.

  In WA, user pay doesnt work. Our Guilds are created by acts of the WA parliament and we would be in violation of our statutory obligations if we denied services to all students (not that we want to).

  The reality is that in some way all students use the services provided by their Student Organisation. And yes groups like External and Mature Age students use a more narrow segment when compared to your typical school leaver, but that is why they do not or should not pay as much! Student organisations know this!

  Nothing in this legislation compels people to join their student organisation but it does compel them to contribute to services and amenities on campus. This is the same principle we use for Government - you do not agree with everything the ALP does but you still pay tax because that is what being a member of a community is about.

  Students can no longer be left out in the cold Senator and we need people to stand up for us. please support this legislation.

  Comment by dom on 06 March 2009 at 05:12:20 PM

• A rejection of VSU is a rejection of the human rights of students. Why should we be forced to give our money to an organisation that gives us no extra than what students already have? Also the A.L.P promised at the last election not to bring back CSU, so it would be irresponsible to do so.

  And Omar…. John Howards ambition was to remove the legacy of Paul Keating who smashed families through financial mismanagement and contempt.

  Comment by Martz on 06 March 2009 at 05:11:37 PM

• Hi Steve,

  I just enrolled in a postgraduate degree at UNSW.  I already pay enough fees without the Government insisting I pay even more.

  Because I work during the day (paying taxes to fund the generous grants to Universities and other activities) I would have little use for many additional non-academic universities.

  I want to go to university to study.  If there are other people who want to go to university for all sorts of fun and games, they should be able to…..but don’t make me fund it.

  If the services that student unions provide are good, then students will pay for them anyway.  If the services are no good, then it is silly to force everyone to fund them.

  Comment by Josem on 06 March 2009 at 05:11:18 PM

• I signed up just so I could comment on this.

  When I was in second year I recieved a parking fine despite only being in a two hour zone for one hour! I was really broke and the time and couldn’t afford the fine. I went to the Sydney University SRC and because of their legal help I didn’t have to pay the fine, it made a real difference. I ended up volunteering and helping out with the SRC because of that.

  The SRC is there to help everbody, but it needs everybody to support it so I oppose VSU.

  Comment by Studentservices on 06 March 2009 at 05:09:49 PM

• Hi Steve,

  I am urging you as a christian to support the reintroduction of a student fee.

  The student union on my campus provides a number of welfare services to assist disadvantaged students to continue with their studies. They provide cheap meal programs, second hand book stores, childcare and counselling for students. By guaranteeing funding for welfare services you are standing up for the poor and not the rich just like Jesus did.

  My Christian group on campus also needs funds like this to help us survive and spread the good word.

  In a time of economic and moral crisis it is more important than ever for christians like us to stand by our christian principles and stand beside our nation’s most vulnerable.

  Kind regards

  Comment by mark on 06 March 2009 at 05:09:39 PM

• I am currently entering my fourth of six years of tertiary education and the proposition of paying an extra few hundred dollars over my final years is worrying to me for a number of reasons.

  During my first year at Melbourne University (studying Arts), VSU had not yet been introduced.  I remember paying hundreds of dollars on enrollment day in good faith that I would see my money, borrowed from my parents, go to really useful services to assist me in my study.  However, my hundreds of dollars ended up being the most expensive 2 sausages and plastic cup of warm beer I’ve ever had.

  From what I saw, that money was financing the good fun of a few, and the pathetic pontification of a self-appointed campus intelligentsia pushing the really tough points, (like ending racism - genius!)

  I think it’s great that people like to get involved with extra-curricular activities at uni; it’s just not something that I choose to do.  Why, then, should I pay for it?  Particularly when I’m already busy enough balancing study and work, and struggling financially as things are.

  I understand that some of the services offered by unions (eg, medical appointments), but these are already available outside the university to poorer students.  Making us pay an extra few hundred dollars for services we already have access to is just plain stupid.

  If I do need to use a particular service I’m happy to pay for it as I go, as per the current system.  Until then, I’ll buy my own sausages and beer thank you very much.

  Comment by jamesr on 06 March 2009 at 05:09:18 PM

• Joining a union should be compulsory.  Unions have a proud history of fighting for the rights of their members, and for progressive change more broadly.  John Howard was a sexist, homophobic, twat of a man who’s prime ambition in life was to smash unions.  This is why he introduced WorkChoices, and this is why he introduced VSU.

  You have indicated that you accept that WorkChoices was rejected by the public, so now it’s time to reject VSU.  Side with the greens and demand that ALL of the new amenities fee goes directly to student unions, and help us preserve our political voice.

  Comment by omar on 06 March 2009 at 05:03:23 PM

• Additionally, the student services fee does not force any student to join their campus student organisation- as I am sure you are aware, Senator Fielding.

  Comment by Stefie on 06 March 2009 at 05:03:19 PM

• I strongly disagree with the posts arguing that the $250 payment will be an extra burden upon students finances. The payment is a deferred payment onto HECS, thus not presenting an upfront financial barrier.

  Furthermore, the benefits of this $250 fee far outweigh its cost. The support, advocacy, and services that students can recieve from the fee far outweigh its costs.

  Comment by Stefie on 06 March 2009 at 05:01:45 PM