The NUS versus freedom of association.(Universities)(National Union of Students)

RESPONDING to the government's proposals to legislate for voluntary student unionism (VSU), the New South Wales President of the National Union of Students was reported in the Sydney Morning Herald of February 17 to have said that "overwhelmingly, students have rejected this policy".

Out of the 600,000 students Australia-wide, can it be believed that the factions that have held the reins of power in the NUS represent a cross-section of Australian youth in making such claims? Who are these students who have so "overwhelmingly" voiced their opposition to VSU?

Mrs Sarah-Jane Collins writes that student organisations knew about the Education Minister's plans to introduce VSU legislation "because voluntary student unionism has been the ideological pursuit of Liberal governments for more than a decade". Yes it has, and what of it? It's strange that the NUS doesn't acknowledge its opposition to VSU as being no less ideological than those who favour individual choice. Such choice is one of the tenets of classical liberalism, and yes, the Liberal position is ideological in this respect. But why are the NUS and its affiliates afraid to come out and admit their vested interest?

"Overwhelming" is a strange description of the mandate that the NUS has had since it replaced its controversial predecessor, the Australian Union of Students. It is true that the NUS no longer donates money or support to dubious socio-political causes to the same extent that the AUS once did, but many of its programs are questionable at best. It is equally true that the NUS cannot honestly claim to represent Australian university students today, while also claiming that there is no broad support for VSU among the campus population.

It is common knowledge that the voter turn-out rates during campus elections when officers to NUS affiliates are elected rarely if ever rise above 30 per cent. In many cases the turn-out can be as low as 5 per cent. This does not illustrate a favourable picture of campus so-called "representatives", nor does it prove that the NUS carries much relevance to the indeed overwhelming majority of students who choose not to participate in the university political arena.

It is precisely this issue that VSU aims to address: if the student body that comprises approximate 70 per cent of all those enrolled at university does not even see the value in exercising its electoral franchise, how then can "student representatives" in good conscience, collect universal membership fees while claiming to speak with a universal voice on behalf of all?

This explains why the NUS is so shy about admitting what motivates its opposition to making its membership voluntary. It's not about students' interests, it's about the NUS's survival. Without a captive market of mandatory membership fees, its very existence becomes uncertain.