The latest fortnightly Morgan poll has Labor’s two party lead down from 57.5-42.5 to 56.5-43.5. Labor’s primary vote lead over the Coalition is 46.5 per cent (up 0.5 per cent) to 37.5 per cent (up 1.5 per cent). Morgan also brings us qualitative research on voters’ “concerns” with the way the parties and leaders are going about their business. More attitudinal gear this week from Newspoll, whose thrice-yearly survey on issues and the parties best equipped to tackle them was published in The Australian on Wednesday
No 293
1. A Government is inherently more accountable than a student union.
2. Teaching music is has both educational and artistic merit, thus I support it. Every dollar for education is a dollar well spent.
No 296
I hope you’re not implicitly supporting student unions supported by compulsory fees. The notion that student unions were “democratically elected” is in my view a furphy. In many cases, less than 10% of the student body ever votes in these elections and yet the union is given control of millions of dollars of student funds without a real mandate.
GP @ 302
I completely believe in compulsory fees for uni students, although I am warm to the ideea of means-testing. Uni services have become almost non-existant since VSU, something needs to be done.
Yes GP I was going to raise that earlier too. Not to mention at some unis, mine included, there is sometimes only 1 candidate for a union position (e.g. sports councillor) so there’s no democratic choice. In addition student union elections are not run in a terribly transparent way, the candidates run on issues such as improving the cafeteria food (this one getting trotted out every year with no difference to the food offered).
In the end it ends up being a popularity contest, whichever candidate has the most friends, coupled with the support of one of the branches of the main political parties (ie Liberal or Labor) is elected in a landslide with 90% of the vote.
you go to sleep secure in the knowledge that you’ve squashed all the cockroaches you needed to stop the buggers breeding.
Now Im normally not paranoid (oh ok,just alittle) but when I went to bed last night the beat up had all but died.No google top story, no move in references at all.
So imagine my surprise when I logs into google and its back,”Amid claims the leak caused offence to the Bush administration, Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull urged Mr Rudd to apologise for embarrassing Mr Bush.”
The latest tool running this is Radio Oz with this gem ”
“People are suggesting it has put at risk the alliance between Australia and the United States.”
77 references on google now
http://news.google.com.au/nwshp?rls=ig&hl=en&tab=wn&ncl=1265559156&topic=n&scoring=d
(back to vigilence mode)
I don’t particularly understand how the Liberal Party can call for an inquiry into the leak and then come to their own conclusion that it was Rudd who caused it.
Labor staff burn out
by Glenn Milne
“Senior Labor figures are concerned about the level of burnout among staff and its impact on policy making. And about the fact that, with a complete lack of work-life balance, Mr Rudd is increasingly reliant on young and childless advisers”
1) Someone please tell Mr Milne that starting a sentence with ‘and’ is something he should avoid.
2) What relevance is it that the Government is ‘reliant on… childless advisers’? Does Mr Milne come from the Heffernan school of ‘bucket[s] of nappies’?
ltep @ 306
Because they’re desperate to sling mud at Rudd and hope something sticks. It’s been the story of the Liberals since December 2006.
[1. A Government is inherently more accountable than a student union.]
We aren’t comparing Government and union, we’re comparing university administration, who are not students, who are not really accountable to students to student unions.
[In many cases, less than 10% of the student body ever votes in these elections and yet the union is given control of millions of dollars of student funds without a real mandate.]
And? It’s not like the unions themselves go about and tell people not to vote. Itep, I don’t think there’s much choice in many elections either. But there’s nothing stopping you from you running.That’s democracy. Contrary to what you and GP are trying to say, something is not “undemocratic” because you don’t like the candidates, nor the result.
GP’s probably just bitter that the Young Libs haven’t contested a few elections. Who knows, maybe they would have one? In fact, in some recent cases they’ve one elections on a platform of neutering the union. I don’t agree with that policy, but I respect the students decision to vote over the decision of the university administration.
No 303
The fact that many services have disappeared is a clear indication that the majority of students gain no value from them. But even putting that aside, services like childcare, dental care and legal advice are already funded by the State and Federal Governments, which makes the compulsory impost on income-poor students doubly unfair.
The furphy about “more expensive food” since VSU is ridiculous. In most cases, union food outlets were of lower quality than their privatised equivalents, and the discounts afforded to union members amounted to a few cents at best.
[In Canberra, bureaucrats are amazed at the disconnect between Rudd’s poll figures and what they see as a largely dysfunctional Government. The breakdown of staff turnover suggests it’s the bureaucrats who have got it right.]
So Milne’s new response to two years of consistent polling is “I talked to some bureaucrats who are tired. The polls are wrong”
Oz, the ‘you can run if you choose to’ argument is silly. I could choose to run in a student election if I wanted but I don’t have the money to be successful nor the political backing that winning candidates have. There’s a certain futility in student elections when the same party wins every year with 90+% of the vote.
Going by your argument Sinapore is an excellent democracy. It doesn’t matter that noone ever wins any seats other than the PAP, as long as people have the option to vote for someone else or run themselves everything’s fine!
Milne also fails to point out it is quite common for high staff turnover in the first year of government. Many of the staff in the first 6+ month will be transitional.
No 309
[We aren’t comparing Government and union, we’re comparing university administration, who are not students, who are not really accountable to students to student unions.]
I was responding to dawson’s comments re: Garrett’s murder of the Music Academy. But even so, student unions have often compared themselves, absurdly, to local governments. The fact is that they were not really accountable to students because they were never elected with any meaningful mandate; and their funds were always guaranteed via coercion. Even if you fulfilled all the academic requirements of your degree, you could be denied graduation if your union fees were not paid. It was complete nonsense.
[GP’s probably just bitter that the Young Libs haven’t contested a few elections.]
Not at all. If find student politics to be a nonsense because it is inconsequential. Most university students agree – evidenced by the drastic falls in membership.
No 314
Should be “I find student politics…”
According to documents recently released Malcolm Fraser is the former Prime Minister to have spent the most in the past year ($508,882). John Howard also spent big in the months from 24 November 2007 to 30 June 2008 ($257,864) with Paul Keating spending the least over the year at ($349,887).
No 316
Ex Prime Ministers should have all pension & perks capped at $120,000.
Yes I should mention that those totals don’t include pensions, which for the most recent former PM is at $330,000 a year. To borrow from the phrasebook of another, that is just obscene.
More from The Australian re: the return of CSU;
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24593032-601,00.html
[The fact is that they were not really accountable to students because they were never elected with any meaningful mandate; and their funds were always guaranteed via coercion.]
You do understand that logic applies the majority of democracies around the world who don’t have compulsory voting?
I’m not sure how you can read that article and still call it “The return of CSU”.
At least we know where your arguments are coming from:
[Australian Liberal Students’ Federation president Byron Hodkinson said the Labor Party promised it would not restore compulsory union fees, whether they be paid upfront or as part of a deferred payment scheme.
“That promise has been broken,” he said.
“This will amount to nothing more than compulsory student unionism. Just because students won’t have to join the union, they will still have to fund political campaigns that everyday students have no interest in.”]
No 318
I agree. It is an inappropriate impost on the public purse. But even if I accepted that their pension should be that high, they should not also have access to such generous perks which puts their post-PM packages north of $500,000 – which is clearly ridiculous.
No 320
Most democracies around the world have voter turnout of more than a single digit percentage.
The fund management sector is calling on the government to help them:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/11/03/2408374.htm?section=justin
Just because none of them want to be subjected to the rules and scrutiny banks must comply with, doesn’t stop them wanting a bail out if they are in trouble. Too bad.
One thing people should realise is that if one of the consequences of the current crisis is a shake-up of the finance sector with some funds being squeezed out, that is NOT necessarily a bad thing. Ther ehas been a proliferation of “investment vehicles” in recent years, some explicitely designed to avoid normal reporting rules. As long as banks can supply capital to the economy the operation of other funds that do not report and manage risk in the same way is NOT essential.
I recall one student union ‘referendum’ on the ending of mandatory detention for refugees being held when I was an undergrad that had a massive voter turnout of 6% GP.
No 321
Mr Hodkinson is an acquaintance of mine. And his arguments are accurate.
The problem with Angus McFarland and the NUS is that they cannot establish that students actually want these services because when faced with the prospect of marketing union membership to the student body, few actually sign up. If students desire union services, they will pay union membership fees.
No 325
Massive turnout….:D
I cannot believe Oz has the audacity to liken real democracies with that of student union “elections”. The difference could not be more stark.
GP I must admit I agree with you on VSU and the services generally. Many of them just provide employment to the service provider staff, and assist a very small minority of people. Those that are really needed, like women’s health issues, arguably should be provided by the relevant state health departments anyway, in which case making the students pay for them just amounts to an additional unfair tax.
[Most democracies around the world have voter turnout of more than a single digit percentage.]
You can’t cherry pick examples. Either you want compulsory voting, or you accept that voluntary voting is legitimate. You don’t get to make up a threshold.
The Youngs Libs hate student unions because they very rarely win, that’s pretty much it. The petty Labor politics played in student politics is rather pathetic, but I’m not one to call for the abolishment of a democratic institution that represents students rights simply because my team doesn’t get in most of the time.
Anyway, this is all moot. Mandatory student unionism is not making any kind of return. The services that the Government wants to see provided are completely legitimate and all students deserve them.
GP further on VSU, apart from the many cases of questionable election practices, often including people failing to disclose affiliations with political parties, there is the history of financial mismanagement too. I am aware of several cases where large amounts of money have been unaccounted for, or some where union assets were allegedly transferred to officials or groups they supported.
Again, confusion is arising between student unions and those who are elected to run them. Do I disagree with them? Most of the time. Are the incompetent? Often. Do I disagree with democratic student advocacy organisations? No.
Further to my 330, here is just one example of the sort of questionable financial practices associated with student unions in the past. This one was Melbourne, 2003:
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/07/25/1059084206414.html
No 328
Completely agree. That’s what the Liberal party and ALSF have argued. Many services provided by unions are already provided or should be provided by governments.
[You can’t cherry pick examples. Either you want compulsory voting, or you accept that voluntary voting is legitimate. You don’t get to make up a threshold.]
I will admit that I am completely in favour of compulsory voting. But having said that, even where voting is voluntary internationally, there is a far larger turn out than any example in a student election. You cannot legitimately argue that an elected body is even remotely representative if more than 90% of the electorate does not vote. That should be plainly obvious whether you support voluntary voting or not. But putting that to one side, student unions have been using the “democratically elected” card to disguise their rampant misuse and mismanagement of millions of dollars of guaranteed student funding.
[The Youngs Libs hate student unions because they very rarely win, that’s pretty much it.]
That’s not it at all. The Young Liberals have a rich history of union leadership going back for decades. Whilst we have had less success in recent years, voluntary student unionism has been apart of our platform for decades as part of our support for freedom of association.
Oz
I don’t see how your arguments support each other. Philosphically I support the idea of student unions too. Examples of incompetence and even corruption do not justify eliminating the concept. I also have no problem with making the voting compulsory.
However I don’t agree with the idea that they should be able to compulsorily levy fees on the students. Student unions are not governments. They are not scrutinised and held accountable in the way governments are. The question of provision of the services and representing stuents views politically are quite separate IMO. If the students wanted the services, as GP said, they would pay for them. Most would rather just buy a new iPOD instead.
No 332
Very good example. There are multitudes more of them in the ALSF submission on VSU:
http://www.alsf.org.au/images/alsf_vsu_submission.pdf
No 334
100% agree. I should also say that I am not opposed to student unions.
At least there will be the option to delay payment, such as you can do with HECS. The thought of having to scratch together an additional $250 a year on top of books and travel costs wouldn’t be great for most students.
[You cannot legitimately argue that an elected body is even remotely representative if more than 90% of the electorate does not vote.]
And your response to a lack of representation of students is to castrate the representative organisation entirely.
[student unions have been using the “democratically elected” card to disguise their rampant misuse and mismanagement of millions of dollars of guaranteed student funding.]
I am not a student union and I do not condone the misuse of funds. Not that I accept that every union engages in the “rampant misuse of funds”. There are plenty of good services out there provided by student unions. However, I do not see any issue whatsoever with having an advocacy organisation. Even though the Libs hated Whitlam and accused him of corruption etc. their response wasn’t to abolish Government, was it.
The problem is that they’re not particularly good advocates and those who do not believe they are shouldn’t be forced to contribute to their running if they choose not to.
I’m a strong believer overall in unions and their worth but having witnessed the wastefulness of student unions I wouldn’t contribute a cent to them as should be my choice. I’ll wait to see the detail overall, but I don’t really see why governments can’t contribute to the running of student services as required without needing to slap this additional fee on students.
[Most would rather just buy a new iPOD instead.]
Of course your argument could be applied to any “levy” or “tax”.
Here is where I stand.
1. There should be on campus services available to all students, even though they may not think they need them, or even if they may not use them at all.
2. Those services should be run by students, not by university bureaucrats.
It’s absolutely hypocritical of people to say “Oh a $250 fee is going to hit students hard”, whilst they supported the continued increase in student fees and the introduction of full-fee paying places. What hits students harder than any $250 levy are the thousands of dollars paid in fees. If we’re talking about “Poor students struggling” why not looking to making tertiary education free again? Or increasing subsidies? Yeah, I thought not.
Oz
The problem with your argument is that you still haven’t linked the compulsory student fees with the advocacy for student concerns. Advocacy is the legitimate role of any union. Fees for services is a different arguement, even though that is where over 90% of the student union money always went. There has been no diminution of the calls by student unions for student needs to be addressed since VSU came in. The services have dropped away, but thats beside the point.
In fact, most of the services readily used by stidents on campus these days are private businesses. All of the big student unions I am familair with simply leased out rights to run shops, cafeteria, gyms etc to private busineses who run them on commercial lines. Many have separate sporting associations that provide those services.
[Advocacy is the legitimate role of any union. Fees for services is a different arguement, even though that is where over 90% of the student union money always went.]
My position is that student unions should be running both. Sports, clubs, volunteering programs, student papers, campus events etc. should be run by students, not the university administration.
No 338
[And your response to a lack of representation of students is to castrate the representative organisation entirely.]
They’ve been castrated because students do not seek or desire their services. It’s as simple as that – if students want representation and services, they will be happy to pay union fees. The fact that an overwhelming majority of students refuse to pay fees, demonstrates quite clearly that either student organisations are not providing a valuable service worth paying for; or, they are no longer relevant. I am inclined to believe it is the former, and as such, unions have to work (geez, imagine that) to ensure that union membership is valuable in order to attract new members.
[However, I do not see any issue whatsoever with having an advocacy organisation.]
Neither do I. What I do oppose is compulsory membership of that organisation. It’s like a labour union in the real world: if workers desire advocacy and representation, they will pay their union fees. Why should student unions be any different?
[Even though the Libs hated Whitlam and accused him of corruption etc. their response wasn’t to abolish Government, was it.]
Oz, the Howard Government did not abolish student unions. It abolished compulsory membership and compulsory levies.
Oz 340
That is again a non-sequiter – you are linking the non-payment of the fee (for services) with the lack of advocacy for the students on issues like tuition fees.
Are you saying that a student union needs a budget of $10 million+ per annum to mount campaigns against fees? I find that hard to believe – you could employ a lot of big law firms for that.
As for your first point,
“1. There should be on campus services available to all students, even though they may not think they need them, or even if they may not use them at all.”
I agree there should be services available on campus. But why should the students be forced to pay for them? And why should the union get to decide what services it will provide. There is no constitution at work here to dictate what areas of service are legitimate. Given the number of people on campuses, the State should provide them. Indeed, that need is true of the average shopping centre.
[It’s as simple as that – if students want representation and services, they will be happy to pay union fees.]
This argument doesn’t make sense. Some of the larger universities stepped in to fill the gap when VSU was introduced. They gave unions a few million dollars to continue running certain services because they, sensibly, believed that services for students should be run by students. So those services still existed, albeit, in a slightly minimised form, and were still being for by students.
You like connecting the dots between “Students didn’t pay union fees, so they don’t want services!”. Well that’s obviously not the case since in many universities things like sports, clubs, publications, legal services, child-care services, concerts and parties still exist and are still utilised by a large number of students. The difference being that instead of paying money directly to the union and letting students run them, their paying the university either through increased fees or a reduction in other services.
No 340
Oz, you criticised me for comparing unions to governments, yet you are now using a similar argument to support compulsory fees; i.e. they are like a “tax” (which are invariably levied by accountable governments).
As Socrates and I have stated, student unions are not governments. Governments are much more accountable.
[1. There should be on campus services available to all students, even though they may not think they need them, or even if they may not use them at all.]
Why? That promotes inefficiency and waste.
Oz
Why are you so insistent on linking the services to student unions? Are you/were you a student union official or employee? I am anything but a liberal party hack or lawyer, but if even GP and I can agree on this, then I think you need to consider that your position is far from mainstream. So why does it matter so much to you? I don’t detect a rational reason for your position in the strengtht of your arguments.
Also, you still haven’t given any in principle reason why the union should provide student services. They are not the department of social security, and are probably not professionally qualified to make such dexcisions anyway.
Oz
One final thing – you referred to not picking unfair examples, but I think the examples are typical. My views on student unions are based on experience on three campuses in various capacities over three decades. I have yet to experience a student union that was efficient, and none spent their money in a way that benefited the majority of students. Most were run by a small circle of self-serving activists that were not representative of students, and rarely talked to them except at election time.
[Are you saying that a student union needs a budget of $10 million+ per annum to mount campaigns against fees? I find that hard to believe – you could employ a lot of big law firms for that.]
Please point out where I said that the only role I believe student unions have is advocacy? I believe I said several times that they have a number of other roles.
[But why should the students be forced to pay for them?]
Why should I be forced to pay for the legal system, when I’ve never used it in my life? I am of the opinion that things like those I have mentioned, clubs, societies, sports, student papers etc. should exist for all students.
Now either you accept that they should exist, and that all students should have equitable access to them, or you don’t. If you do then have to decide whether the university runs them (which means students pay) or the union runs them (which means students pay).
You can talk all you like about how government and unions are different, and they are. But the arguments in favour of taxation at government level to provide services can also be applied to campus level. Especially when you consider that services aren’t going to magically disappear, because students actually want them, contrary to what GP keeps saying. The only difference being that the university will run them and not unions.
No 345
I don’t have a large problem with students running student services. That is not my argument. My argument is that student organisations should not have compulsory membership or compulsory levies.
[You like connecting the dots between “Students didn’t pay union fees, so they don’t want services!”]
I’m connecting the dots, so to speak, because it’s a logical conclusion. If they don’t want to pay for union services, they don’t want those services.