Letters from Kelly Hoare, ALP member for Charlton

During the early part of my VSU activities, I lived within the Federal electorate of Charlton. My local member was Labor member, Kelly Hoare. I called her office to ask for her perspective on VSU.

Kelly Hoare replied by letter, but proceeded to claim that the Liberal Government's proposal on Voluntary Student Unionism would reflect the Victorian model (really Voluntary Student Representation), which clearly has disadvantages when compared to the Western Australian model. She also stated that student membership of unions should not be made voluntarily because many students would not elect to join a union based on financial reasons.

I was astounded by such claims, and replied that Kelly Hoare was trying to present Voluntary Student Unionism in a negative manner by pointing out the flaws in a model that was irrelevant. Further, I pointed out that her comments about student membership is akin to saying that Student unions are good; given the choice of whether to join or not, students would make the wrong decision; therefore they must not be given the choice.

Dear Kelly Hoare MP,

I am in receipt of your letter of 17 Feb 1999, and firstly let me state my appreciation for your time, and for writing. I hear often about people who do not receive replies to correspondence from parliamentarians, and so I am very pleased that you do not fall into this category.

Unfortunately, however, your letter has merely raised further questions.

For example, you make reference to the Victorian system currently in place. You refer to this as voluntary student unionism, and you make the suggestion that the Coalition proposal will follow this model. In fact, you explicitly refer to "current examples" (plural) of voluntary student unionism.

To this I must respond that the Victorian model is just one model in place in Australia (singular), and is in fact voluntary student representation. The difference to voluntary student unionism in Western Australia is quite marked. Not only this, the Coalition proposal will follow the Western Australian model, and so I am very surprised that you referred to the Victorian model at all. In fact, Senator Tierney advises that the Victorian model will be changed to fall in line with the Coalition model, because Federal law overrides state law.

I have been in discussion over this issue with the president of the Newcastle University Students Association, and he too makes an appeal to the Victorian model. In his case, I believe he is deliberately attempting to misrepresent the Coalition proposal - and hence be deceitful. I would not like to believe you are attempting to be deliberately deceitful, but it seems to me that the only other option is that you are not actually aware of the full details of the Coalition proposal. To be honest, I would not be happy with my local member criticising a proposal that I support, if she does not actually understand it.

When I first contacted your office, your electoral officer - Joshua Brown - suggested that the Coalition were planning to introduce voluntary student unionism as a reaction to the mere concept of 'unionism', and he also suggested that the Coalition were going to attempt to sneak the proposal through, bypassing the Senate. I know the former is simply incorrect, and Senator Tierney advises that not only is the latter untrue, but it is not possible anyway.

Hence, you will understand me if I suggest that I am in fact receiving misinformation from your office.

I was quite surprised that you suggest the Howard Government is in any way opposed to students and young people - especially in light of such recent examples as the fact that under Labor the number of apprentices and trainees in training fell to a nine-year low of 131,000 in 1994. The previous low figure of 1985 was also under a Labor government.

These numbers are significant, because as you are aware, over 70% of young people do not make the transition from secondary education to University.

The Liberal and National Coalition government has reinvigorated the traineeship and apprentice system, to reach a record high 183,800 people in training in early 1998. In fact, the Coalition is on track to achieve a record 200,000 new apprenticeships by the end of this year.

Hence, you will understand me, again, if I suggest that I can not believe the Howard Government is in fact opposed to young people in any way - and certainly that they in any way have a disregard or contempt for students.

Actually, I would feel your appeal to the financial struggle of students to even work against your disagreement with voluntary student unionism. The compulsory up-front fee could be better used on textbooks or accomodation or other matters that actually do contribute to a students' education, rather than funding, for example, the sports union.

Ultimately, it seems to me the argument you propose in your letter is that student unions are beneficial; many young people would not choose to join a student union if they had the choice, for financial reasons; we know best, hence we must not allow students to have the choice, because they will make the wrong decision. I am sure, again, you will understand me if I question this reasoning, and even propose it is undemocratic to deny people the basic rights of freedom of association. Indeed, if many students would not join the student unions for financial reasons, then this simply suggests that many people do not perceive the student unions to be worthwhile enough to bother joining or funding, and that, again, the money could be better spent elsewhere.

Finally, I am pleased that you noted my letter to the editor, and I must express my appreciation that you are clearly perceptive to issues being raised by your constituents in local media.

Yours sincerely,
David M. Williams

Kelly Hoare replied,

Dear Mr Williams

I refer to your email of 23 February 1999 concerning your contact with my office, and my letter to you regarding voluntary student unionism.

I apologise if any of the information provided appeared to misrepresent the Coalition's position on the issue.

At the time you spoke with my electorate officer, details relating to the proposed introduction of voluntary student unionism were unclear, and based to a degree on speculation.

It was understood at the time that the Minister responsible would be able to invoke regulations that would not require the approval of Parliament. It was not confirmed, and my staff indicated to you at the time that it was difficult to know for sure. The more logical explanation at the time was that the Higher Education Funding Act would be amended to restrict funds to universities that did not give students the choice to join their student organisations.

Labor believes that student organisations are effective at running services for the benefit of students. Labor is concerned that many services they provide on campus will no longer be provided, should voluntary student unionism be introduced.

I would hope this clarifies any misunderstanding.

Yours sincerely

Kelly Hoare MP
Member for Charlton
25 Feb 1999

It must be made clear that the electoral office staff did not indicate that it would be "difficult to know" how the minister would act, and the initial correspondence from Ms. Hoare was adamant about the Victorian model being used.

The member does apologise if her letter appeared to misrepresent the Coalition, which is nice, but the truth is that the letter did misrepresent the Coalition. However, my congratulations to Ms. Hoare for admitting in her letter that the ALP do not base their comments on fact but on speculation.

I wrote again to Kelly Hoare, asking if the ALP will be flexible in their dealings with the Government on VSU, given that her above letter suggests that Labor is not entirely opposed to VSU but rather concerned by some of its potential implications. I received no reply.