The government is still groping its
way towards a compromise that will allow passage of its legislation to impose
voluntary student unionism (VSU), the Higher Education Support Amendment
(Abolition of Compulsory Up-front Student Union Fees) Bill.
Brendan Nelson carefully left the door open on Wednesday, reports The Age: “I think
the views and concerns and reservations that are held by a range of people,
while I disagree with them, are legitimate.”

The likely outcome will be some sort of additional government grant to
universities to fund the services that student unions currently provide –
maybe just to regional universities, more likely on some ostensibly neutral
basis that in fact favours the National Party’s heartland. The political
reality will override the objections of those like Senator Mitch Fifield, who
said “If it’s wrong to compel students to pay a fee, then I think it’s wrong
to slug the taxpayer for that
money.” Click here for the full story.

The government clearly wants to settle things without amending
the legislation, but that may not be possible. The bill provides
that universities must not require students “to pay … an amount for
the provision to students of an amenity, facility or service that is not
of an academic nature.” But for that to make sense, it must also
prevent universities from funding such services out of their general
revenue; otherwise they could just increase their other fees and then shuffle
the money around to maintain current funding levels for the student
unions.

Yet some VSU supporters seem comfortable with that. In
today’s Fin Review (not online), John
Roskam says that “If the universities genuinely believe that student services
are so important … there should be more than enough capacity in the other
99 per cent of university budgets to fund those services.”

Even
if that solution is possible, how exactly is it supposed to be an advantage
over present arrangements? Services and amenities will still be provided on
campuses, and students will still be paying for them – whether in fees, or
HECS, or in higher taxes. What they will lose is the element of democratic
control of the expenditure that student unions currently provide. Sure,
democracy isn’t everything, but it’s better than nothing.