Martin Pool's blog

Mail me RSS Bazaar distcc Canonical is hiring! flickr

More on student unionism

Chris replied.

I should have made it more clear that I'm not particularly in favour of compulsory student unionism; I'm just annoyed by facile arguments against it.

I think one major difference is that unlike many taxes, compulsory student union fees are fixed, regardless of the ability to pay. This would be similar to everyone having to pay $20,000 per year in income tax regardless of how much they earned.

It's not really similar: $20k is perhaps half the average income, but even when I was a moderately poor student my income was more than twice the union fee of ~$180. So it's really comparable to everyone paying $1400 per annum. (Which, when you put it that way, sounds pretty good.) And of course many taxes are unrelated to income.

(Not that this would hold any water with the user-pays approach espoused by Julian, mind you: since people get the same benefit, they should pay the same amount. Indeed, strictly applying user-pays, we should tax poor people *more* because they're more likely to use healthcare, social security, prisons, etc...)

Why is there such a strong objection by the student unions to HECS fees which don't need to paid until people are able to, and at the same time strong support for up front union fees?

Because student unions tend to have a socialist, redistributivist bent, and so to want government services to be funded by a wide base, not just the people who use them. So for example the Women's Room should be funded by all students, not just women who use it, and universities should be funded by all taxpayers not just students. If they could get their funding from federal consolidated revenue (ie from all taxpayers) and not just from students, then I think they would. It is consistent, although I don't really agree.

Surely if the student unions are correct about the importance of the services, they will be able to convince the majority of the students (who being able to qualify for university courses should be reasonably intelligent) that the fees are going to a good common cause, and that they should continue to pay the fees.

Right, and you can make the exact same argument about taxes: if I feel that, say, hospitals are good, I ought to join a private HMO or pay my own bills or donate to a charitable hospital. I wouldn't personally go that far, but the logical conclusion of Julian's argument is no compulsory taxation at all.

One argument for compulsory taxation is redistributive, another is the free-rider effect: I benefit from the existence of the judicial system, even if I don't directly use it in any particular year. Similarly: all students supposedly benefit from their representatives' participation in the university senate.

Having said all that I think you could probably wind back the union budgets a great deal and try to make them more representative and efficient. I don't see why compulsory fees should go to fund political, religious, sports or recreational societies. I have nothing against clubs, but it's clearly something people will pay for themselves, and people who don't participate shouldn't be forced to fund them. But then I think that goes for a lot of state and federal programs too.

Therefore, I'd like to see competition between different unions: if one university wants to have a low-taxing union, why not let them? Why is this a federal government issue at all? (Well, I know why, but that's a different story.)

posted Thu 24 Mar 2005 in /issues/politics | link

Note on Student Unionism

On Radio Nartional today, Julian Barendse, President, Australian Liberal Student Federation argues that university students shouldn't have to pay student union fees because they might not make use of all the services, or they might feel the council doesn't represent them. Why not apply this logic at all levels: I make use of few federal government services and dislike many ministers, so why do I have to pay tax?

(Well, I understand the social contract argument, but it disappoints me that Julian apparently doesn't.)

Alternatively, why not put it to the test: let each university student and faculty decide whether they want a compulsory union, and how much the levy should be. Let the Good Universities Guide rate each one on the quality and cost-effectiveness of their unions.

posted Wed 23 Mar 2005 in /issues/politics | link

For ever and ever

JohnHoward.blogspot.com:

Even when I'm dead, Australians will elect my corpse over the Australian Loser Party, 'cause they will know that my corpse has a proven track record and that it will keep interest rates low. Speaking of which, that was one of the best parts of this election. I reckon that the whole interest rate thing really showed how heaps smart Australians are. 'Cause like, even though every economist in the country said that they wouldn't rise under the Loser Party, Aussies were smart enough to listen to me instead. That's 'cause Australians know I'm honest and reliable and stuff.

posted Fri 29 Oct 2004 in /issues/politics | link

The real reason for invading Iraq

The Economist's review of Bush's presidency gives this explanation for his foreign policy. [Sub required, mail me if you would like to see the whole text.]

It is not surprising that such a conservative president produced such a conservative response to September 11th. For a while the terrorist attacks both unified the country and turned Mr Bush into the most popular president since the second world war. Democrats and Republicans in Congress joined hands to sing "God Bless America"; the vast majority of the country supported Mr Bush's immediate decision to remove the Taliban from power in Afghanistan. But in the months after the felling of the Taliban, Mr Bush drove a wedge into the heart of American politics.

One reason why Mr Bush proved so divisive was that he embraced such a radical response to September 11th. He did not think that fighting terrorism was just a matter of bringing individuals to justice: that approach had been tried in the 1990s and resulted in catastrophic failure. He did not think it was just a matter of improving security at home: terrorists would always find a way to get through even the most cunning security systems. He argued that you need to take the battle to the enemy camp: first, by destroying terrorists in their home base and, second, by revolutionising the Middle East. America's traditional policy of cuddling up to the region's dictators and kleptocrats had turned the region into a breeding ground for Islamic extremism. What was now needed was a radically new approach, in which America would throw its weight behind the liberating force of democracy.

Mr Bush's decision to remove Saddam may have been highly controversial. But at least it sprang from a positive vision of regional transformation (people who say he took the huge risk of invading Iraq to improve his election chances are misjudging where the true political risks lay). Much less admirable is Mr Bush's willingness to exploit September 11th for partisan gain. In the mid-term elections in 2002 the Republicans relentlessly portrayed the Democrats as weak on terrorism. In Georgia they even campaigned successfully against Senator Max Cleland—a man who had lost three limbs in Vietnam—on the grounds that he was soft on homeland security.

Whether "revolutionising" the Middle East again will improve things has yet to be seen.

posted Sun 24 Oct 2004 in /issues/politics | link

Blame W

Phil Greenspun:

If we can say "we didn't vote for W" we are considered good citizens of the world. George W. Bush attracts all of the hatred.

Maybe we should take advantage of the fact that we have our scapegoat in place. We can make a list of all of the countries that we need to invade, install puppet governments in, or steal their natural resources. If W. loses the election we go on a big military spree until mid-January and then Kerry can come in and say "We had nothing to do with the fact that Bush kicked your asses but sadly the U.S. government never apologizes for anything or returns any loot."

posted Mon 18 Oct 2004 in /issues/politics | link

Liberals on homeopathy

AJ points to this ABC story in which Liberal Senator Bill Heffernan says:

The testing regime that's being used [for chemical contamination of water catchments] has difficulty in identifying chemicals at a homoeopathic level, down to the level where it slowly poisons you rather than taking a gut full of poison, which you're inclined to sick up.

(I'm not sure if the spelling error originated in Heffernan's statement or the ABC report.)

What is a homeopathic level, anyhow? Homeopathy uses active substances, repeatedly diluted by 1:10, 1:100 or 1:50,000 dilution dozens of times, for a total dilution factor such as 1:10⁴⁰⁰. At such astronomically high dilutions not a single molecule of the substance will remain.

In other words, the testing regime Heffernan criticizes has difficulty identifying chemicals when not a single molecule is present in the whole state. What a shocking failure! Maybe we ought to bring in dowsers to check whether the vibrations of the chemicals are still present?

And the Liberals say the Greens are kooky...

posted Tue 28 Sep 2004 in /issues/politics | link

Liberals on "Liberals"

The Economist says:

Mr Howard's policies are doing Australia no good, especially as relations with Indonesia (and elsewhere in Asia) have grown fractious in recent years. The Bali bombing in October 2002, which killed many Australians, heightened the fear of terrorism. Worries about unsustainability surround the buoyant economy. Domestically, Aboriginal grievances have yet to be assuaged. A flawed referendum on republicanism in 1999 produced a result out of step with the wishes of most Australians.

Who is a social and economic liberal supposed to vote for? Not the "Liberals" (more accurately, Conservatives). Not the centrist ALP, with more than 50% of conference votes still controlled by unions. More tax, please from the Greens and Democrats doesn't hold much appeal either.

AJ replied, as I had hoped. To respond:

The article is surprisingly short and opinionated, therefore verges on mere assertion. I'm not sure where it came from in the print magazine; maybe from the short articles at the front. Anyhow.

"X is no good" is an English idiom meaning "X is bad", not "X has absolutely no good aspects whatsoever."

You realise there's more to the economy than just property prices, right?

Right, but [e]conomists seem to believe that a bubble in property prices followed by a sharp decline could cause a more widespread downturn. The larger part of the wealth of a majority(?) of Australians is tied up in real estate.

If the [republic] referendum was flawed, that's a good thing too.

That's a bizarre position. Why spend time and money running a flawed referendum? According to at least some credible surveys, most Australians want to move towards a republic although not on the specific terms offered. Howard's referendum was designed to give the impression of listening, without truly reflecting our wishes.

I agree with AJ that the Liberals may be quite liberal on economic issues — conservative parties often are. But I don't want to choose economic or social liberties; why can't I have both? (I suppose what I'm really asking is: why is there no moderate liberal/libertarian party in Australia?)

I can't believe someone would be merely too timid to say "Sorry" but bold enough to go to war. I think this is what the Economist means when they aim to take part in a severe context between intelligence, which presses forward, and an unworthy timid ignorance obstructing our progress.

Starkoff, Esq is stuck for good candidates.

Kate Lundy seems like a good deal, according to Linux Australia people who've dealt with her. I think she needs a new web design though.

posted Tue 21 Sep 2004 in /issues/politics | link

"A Moral Chernobyl"

Christopher Hitchens on Abu Ghraib and consequences.

posted Fri 18 Jun 2004 in /issues/politics | link

Copping an earn

The 7:30 report asks whether money has an undue influence on professional sport.

This seems a bit like asking whether money has an undue influence on banking.

posted Tue 27 Apr 2004 in /issues/politics | link

Wikipedia on Whitlam

Wikipedia's feature article today is on Gough Whitlam

posted Fri 26 Mar 2004 in /issues/politics | link

Priorities...

From The Register:

Intel CEO Craig Barrett said the annual US bill for agricultural subsidies — $30bn —represented an investment "in the industries of the 19th century". By contrast, the annual federal investment in science is just $5bn, he noted.

posted Mon 12 Jan 2004 in /issues/politics | link

Yussuf al-Ayyeri

Instapundit points to a NY Post column about the book The Future of Iraq and The Arabian Peninsula After The Fall of Baghdad by Yussuf al-Ayyeri.

Al-Ayyeri argues that the history of mankind is the story of "perpetual war between belief and unbelief." Over the millennia, both have appeared in different guises. As far as belief is concerned, the absolutely final version is represented by Islam, which "annuls all other religions and creeds." Thus, Muslims can have only one goal: converting all humanity to Islam and "effacing the final traces of all other religions, creeds and ideologies."[...]

What Al-Ayyeri sees now is a "clean battlefield" in which Islam faces a new form of unbelief. This, he labels "secularist democracy." This threat is "far more dangerous to Islam" than all its predecessors combined. The reasons, he explains in a whole chapter, must be sought in democracy's "seductive capacities."[...]

If established in any Muslim country for a reasonably long time, democracy could lead to economic prosperity, which, in turn, would make Muslims "reluctant to die in martyrdom" in defense of their faith.

posted Wed 10 Sep 2003 in /issues/politics | link

aj on Hanson's Sentence

For someone I mostly agree with, aj is good at goading me into writing. Anthony writes, on the issue of Ettridge and Hanson's sentencing:

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see a lot of point getting worked up when a thief pays back everything they stole. If you're going to slap someone on the wrists, do it to the people who can and do remedy the harm they cause.

I think it's just you.

Giving back ill-gotten gains when somebody is caught or about to be caught does not undo the crime. There are at least three reasons: Hanson had the benefit of the money in the interim, the fraud was wrong in itself regardless of whether it was profitable, and there must be a disincentive to people “trying it on”. It's right and normal for criminals to do more than just repay the money. In passing sentence Wolfe CJ did consider their attempt to repay, among other mitigating circumstances, which is also entirely reasonable.

Most people are focussing on the money, but I think it's not the main problem. $500,000 out of a national budget is significant but not all that much. However, illegally interfering with an election deserves a ton of bricks, if not two.

One Nation's fraud brought them non-monetary benefits which they can't repay. We can't go back now and re-run the election with One Nation not registered. The sentence says:

There is no doubt that the registration of the party gave it an advantage. Before the 1998 election a coalition government held government with the help of one independent. After the election, when eleven One Nation candidates were elected, a Labour government held government with the help of one independent. I cannot speculate what might have happened had each One Nation candidate gone to the election without the benefit of registration. They would have been able and permitted to advertise as One Nation candidates but they would have had to lodge their candidacies for election independently and they would have been entitled to claim electoral funding if they had qualified with the four per cent. They would not have had their names identified with One Nation, the political party on the ballot paper.

Another argument offered in their defense is that it was a mistake on a technicality and there was no criminal intent. Similar, perhaps, to accidentally filing an incorrect tax return, rather than deliberately evading tax. But a jury in an apparently fair trial found that Hanson and Ettridge knew, and should have known, that what they were doing was wrong. So that defense is out.

Mediawatch quotes the Courier Mail saying:

Hanson's jailing for not properly understanding the detail will only confirm in the minds of many of her supporters that the world is indeed stacked against them.

What it ought to confirm is that before dealing with large amounts of money or running for government you damn well should understand the detail, or consult someone who does.

Arguments about whether One Nation is unaccountable to its members or has wacky policies are beside the point. If the Democrats or the Greens managed to defraud the public purse and get false information put onto ballots, thereby potentially changing the outcome of a state election, then they ought to be hammered too.

Are people complaining about this seriously suggesting that deliberately attempting to steal votes ought to get only a slap on the wrist?

Now if it turned out that Hanson didn't get a fair trial that would be different...

posted Thu 4 Sep 2003 in /issues/politics | link

A right-wing Phillip Adams?

Judith Brett, author of a forthcoming book on Australian Liberals, in the present issue of Arena Magazine, quoted in today's Australian:

In 1997, accusing the ABC of “too narrow a spectrum of views” on political and social issues, John Howard said: “It is one of my criticisms of the ABC that it doesn't have a right-wing Phillip Adams.” But the problem is that a right-wing Phillip Adams — someone with his capacity to talk intelligently on such a breadth of topics — is not easily imaginable in contemporary Australia.

The ABC has become a symbol to the Liberals of their loss of a constituency which was once their own. Ever since the intelligentsia defected to Labor with the coming of Whitlam, Liberals have viewed the ABC with suspicion...

The progressive middle class is now more likely to oppose the Liberal Party than support it; the commonplace people who share Howard's views are more likely to be listening to the shock jocks of talk-back radio than to the ABC. This is not necessarily an electoral problem, but it is a marked shift in the party's historical position.

Menzies would never have said, as Howard did shortly before the 2001 election: “I am scorned by the elites and held in such disdain.”

Of course the ALP seem to be doing an equally professional job of alienating the intelligentsia, and the Democrats are apparently imploding. It's a bit depressing.

posted Mon 21 Jul 2003 in /issues/politics/australia | link

Copyright (C) 1999-2007 Martin Pool.