Voluntary Student Unionism - letters to local media

The Newcastle Herald newspaper published an article (23rd December, 1998) titled Uni fees proposal slammed, which suggested that the University of Newcastle had made an official stance against Liberal voluntary student unionism (VSU) plans.

No correlating announcements on the official University press release page can be found.

Further, the Newcastle Herald quoted just three persons - one of whom was a representative of the students association, and another the General Manager of the student union. The third was Professor Brian English, Deputy Vice-Chancellor of the University. Yet, his comment simply noted that the existing system "works".

I wrote to the Newcastle Herald in reply, and this was published on the 2nd of January, 1999 as follows (the italicised text did not appear in the published form but was part of the original letter):

The article 'Uni fees proposal slammed' (NH 23/12) seems curiously titled.

After all, The Herald attributed quotes to just three people, including the general manager of the Student Union itself.

Professor Brian English is the only likely candidate to be an official spokesperson for the university, yet his comment does not adequately defend the position the newspaper has taken.

Indeed, if Professor English is opposing voluntary student unionism solely on the basis that the existing system is already working, then I would be disappointed at such logic.

Simply because something works is no reason that it should not be replaced by a better alternative.

The student association spokesperson suggests voluntary student unionism would "destroy" campus life for students. Yet, I would suspect that many of the Student Union services and facilities are not used by the majority of students, nor are they even known to be available.

Despite claims by the Australian Democrats about university life being a 'holistic experience', student demographics have changed and a great many students are now working people engaged in part-time study. These people are still paying full fees, but yet are possibly on campus only a handful of hours a week, and almost certainly make little use of the Student Union facilities.

It seems to me that voluntary student unionism is all about choice.

Not only this, if the Students Association and the Student Union are afraid of losing members, then surely they will be pressed to be more active in providing services to, and meeting needs of students, as well as providing representation for them. I fail to see that this is a bad thing.

Finally, I find it contradictory that leftist movements adamantly oppose certain University costs - which can be deferred - but then insist upon the up-front, compulsory and non-voluntary fee under discussion.

David M. Williams

The Newcastle Herald published a response on the 22nd January, 1998 by Michael Kachel, the then president of NUSA. He suggested that Voluntary Student Unionism was simply a ploy by the Federal Government to silence the student voice, before the introduction of a GST. He referred to the current system as "universal" membership, recognising the distateful sound of the real name, "compulsory student unionism".

(It's worth mentioning here that Michael Kachel insisted the University of Newcastle Liberal Club display an anti-VSU placard on its desk during the University orientation week of 1999 - we, of course, refused, and this became the topic of a press release by ALSF.)

Again, I responded, and this was published on February 9th, 1999 by the Newcastle Herald:

I am writing in reply to Michael Kachel's letter regarding voluntary student unionism (NH 22/1).

I believe that Michael avoids the real issue, and that his arguments work against him.

The labelling of the current system as 'univeral membership' is highly deceptive. The Coalition Government wish to introduce voluntary student unionism because the current system is compulsory student unionism.

The current system is not simply a 'universal membership', but is an undemocratic means of forcing students to to join or fund certain organisations as a condition of enrolment at University. Students do not have the option of choice, and are not permitted the basic right of freedom of association.

Despite how he may choose to couch the term, Michael Kachel wrote to support compulsory student unionism.

Michael insists that the Coalition's plans are anti-student, and will promote censorship. Further, he insists the voluntary scheme will silence the student's voice. However, this conclusion simply begs the question. If student unions will lose influence and voice, then this must mean that student unions will lose members. This can only mean that many people would not choose to be a member of a student union if the choice were given to them, and NUSA realises this.

This is the real reason why Michael Kachel supports compulsory student unionism - many students simply have no interest in - or are even opposed to - the activities of NUSA and would not fund their operations if given the option, which is surely an expectation and right of a democratic society.

Rather than protest against democracy, NUSA and the student unions would be best advised to ensure a quality of service and representation that is deemed beneficial and attractive to the majority of students, such that they might join under their own volition.

David M. Williams

A reply to this was again made by Michael Kachel. This time his letter attempted to present a misrepresented form of the Victorian Voluntary Student Representation (VSR) model as the VSU proposal by the Federal Government.

Now, either the president of NUSA did not actually understand what it is he was objecting to, or he deliberately set out to deceive. Neither is acceptable for the president of a student union. I replied again, and this was published in the Newcastle Herald on February 21st:

I am astounded by Michael Kachel's letter (NH 13/2) concerning Voluntary Student Unionism (VSU). Either he does not actually know what he is objecting to, or he is deliberately trying to misrepresent the facts. Neither option is acceptable for the president of the student union.

Mr Kachel refers to the Victorian model for VSU. However, as NUSA president, he should be well aware that the Coalition proposal will reflect the Western Australian model, where students do not pay any money for student organisations unless they so choose.

By referring to the Victorian model, Mr Kachel is either attempting to deceive, or he genuinely does not understand what it is he is so opposed to.

Mr Kachel's letter is similarly misleading or confused in other points.

Ultimately, though, how Mr Kachel can believe it is in any way undemocratic to allow people the choice of whether they join an organisation or not is a wonder to me. The frank truth of the matter is that NUSA insist VSU is a form of censorship because it threatens their own activities - which clearly do not interest the majority of students. For NUSA to insist they are the voice of students is sheer arrogance.

David M. Williams

Other members of The University of Newcastle Liberal Club had letters published on this topic, as follows:

I approve of David Kemp's proposal for voluntary student unionism.

I am a University of Newcastle student and feel that universities should make more efficient use of the scarce education dollar.

I understand that the university newspaper OPUS costs no less than $8000 to produce per issue.

In regard to Samantha Turner's letter (NH 29/1) I would rather see my money sit in university coffers than be wasted by such intellectual efforts.

NUSA is one organisation that I'll be glad to be free not to associate with.

Nigel Morris
February 2

David Williams' letter regarding Voluntary Student Unionism (NH 9/2) highlights what is the crux of the issue for me - the right to freedom of association.

Despite their persistent denials, NUSA continues to adopt and promote an anti-Howard government agenda, evidenced by the mountains of propaganda material displayed on campus.

I certainly do not wish to see my General Service Charge used to undermine the government that I and many other people voted into parliament.

NUSA maintains that they are the voice of students at Newcastle University, yet they continue to misrepresent my views in the political sphere.

Surely I deserve the right to decide for myself whether I wish to be associated with this group.

NUSA derides the government for attempting to introduce Voluntary Student Unionism, as they claim it is merely a form of censorship of students.

I believe that it is actually NUSA who indulges in censorship, as I am forced to fund activities and causes which I fundamentally disagree with.

Kara Densby
February 10